Caste_system.

pdf
Challenges_of_Social_Transformation.pdf
G.H.Mead.pdf
Impact_of_colonial_rule_on_Indian_society.pdf
Industrialisation_and_Urbanisation_in_India.pdf
Major_Theoretical_Strands.pdf
Perspectives_on_the_study_of_Indian_society.pdf
Politics___Society.pdf
POLITICS__AND__SOCIETY.pdf
Population_Dynamics.pdf
Positivism___its_critique.pdf
Religion_and_society.pdf
Research_Methods_and_Analysis.pdf
Rural_And_Agrarian_Social_Structure.pdf
Rural_And_Agrarian_Transformation_In_India.pdf
Social_Change_in_Modern_Society.pdf
Social_Classes_In_India.pdf
Social_Movements_In_Modern_India.pdf
Sociology_as_Science2.pdf
Sociology-_The_Discipline_.pdf
Stratification___Mobility.pdf
Systems_of_Kinship.pdf
Systems_of_Kinship_in_India.pdf
Tribal_Communities_in_India.pdf
Visions_Of_Social_Change_In_India.pdf
Work___Economic_Life.pdf
 Caste system

Introduction
In India we come across a special type of social stratification in the form of caste. Although
evidence of caste are found in many parts of the world as among the present-day the most perfect instances
is that which exists in India. The word ‘caste’owes its origin to the Spanish word ‘casta’ which means bread,
race, strain or a complex of hereditary qualities.

Herbert Risley has defined caste as a collection of families or group of families, bearing name;
claiming of common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine; professing to follow the same
hereditary calling and regarded by those who are competing to give an opinion as forming a single homogenous
community.

According to George Lundberg, caste is merely a rigid social class into which members are born
and from which they can withdraw escape only with extreme difficulty. It is the type of stratification system
which is most rigid in mobility and status.

Henry Maine says that caste started as natural division of occupational classes and eventually
upon receiving the religious sanction, became solidified into the existing caste system. The caste system comes
into being when it becomes an integral part of religious dogma which divides people into superior inferior groups
with different responsibilities, functions and standards of living.

According to Green, caste is a system of stratification in which mobility, up-and-down the

status ladder, at least ideally, may not Occur.

According to Anderson and Parker, caste is that extreme form of social class organisation in
which the position of individuals in the status hierarchy is determined by descent and birth. Whereas William
says that caste is a system in which an individual’s rank and its accompanying rights and obligations are
ascribed on the basis of birth into a particular group.

Various thinkers have defined redefined the term caste in several ways but Ghurye says that
even with all the labour of the students, however, we do not possess a real general definition of caste.

Not just identity but caste also comes from birth and lasts till death. Early scholars equated
caste with race in India. The colonial rulers followed diversified perspective to study caste e.g. ritual,
occupation, promotion of race etc. Travelers and missionaries observed India through the eyes of caste. Early
studies were not driven by empirical data.
 Various theories which have been put forward to the study of caste in India like Varna theory,
occupational theory, race theory, ritual theory, Commensality theory.

Varna theory: it derives data from Hindu texts. It says that Varna and and cast are
complementary to each other which a person inherits right from his birth. The term Varna means colour. In
religious texts, the concept of Varna is used for grading people. These Varnas are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya
and Shudras.

Occupation theory: it has two types, the first one says that people get their names in terms
of their occupation e.g. Lohar, sonar whereas in the second group people get their names not according to
their caste or occupation (neutral identity) e.g. Jats as they go for diversified occupation.

Race theory: it says that there were two types of races i.e. Aryans and Dasus. The indigenous
group of Dasus were defeated by the Aryans. Aryans being a superior race was not willing to give equal status
to Dasus. But later on intermarriages to place which led to creation of different colour groups and this gave
rise to different identity groups. Now they are different racial categories e.g. difference based on colour,
difference based occupation difference based on temperament.

Ritual theory: In a Theosophical, moralist, ritualistic society people go for different rituals for
different purpose and out of which they gained their identity. E.g. Kshatriya perform the ritual at warfront.
Rituals for common welfare of people is performed by people belonging to superior status e.g. Brahmins.

Commensality theory: people living in particular area develop interaction with their kiths and
kins. They go for a specific kind of occupation and food and they worship to their common great ancestors
correspondingly. They carry their names and the names that they carry in one area is not taken by other
people belonging to different area e.g. Reddys, Bhumiars, Caste is a product of commensality.

When British were studying Indian society they were trying to differentiate between caste system in
terms of race. Caste in India is nothing but application of the concept of race in the West.

MN Srinivas on caste
Western scholars looked at India from a holistic perspective i.e. only focused present in India.
But empirically it's not true because we can't hold the view that all over India only few caste exist. “Varna
and Jati ”is the first article written by Srinivas through which we can understand his views on caste. Srinivas
says that Varna and caste share dynamic relationship and one cannot say Varna is absolutely different from
caste. Srinivas says that it is a fallacious statement that “caste is inclusive in the Varna system”. He writes
that caste is inclusive and Varna but not all caste groups are included within it. Caste is different from Varna
and one is in conflict with other. Varna says only for groups of people exist in India whereas in caste system
there are many groups present.

Every caste group is trying to gain upward mobility they link themselves to Varna system but if
one only studies Varna system he could not know and understand the different groups present in Indian
society. In every linguistic division there are 200 – 300 caste groups present. Hence their are almost 12,000
groups present in India while on the other hand there is only 4 Varna system is in India. Hence it gives a
limited view of the Indian society. It only gives half image rather than showing a full image. Press caste gives
a realistic and holistic approach (empirical view).

Varna considers Shudras as unified groups but caste system tells that we have different kinds of
Shudras. Varna system indicate that Kshatriyas are also unified group which is not true. If we look into caste
system we find out that in the middle hierarchy of caste dynamism and mobility is taking place continuously
e.g. Chauhan Rajputs were salt makers. VM Panikar says that since the 5th century BC no Kshatriya is
present because those who were Kshatriya evaluated/converted to Brahminic status.

Elements of caste are diffusing from one area to another. Varna provides distorted image about
India and researchers must have to keep themselves free from Varna biasness to understand Indian society.
Varna provides a simplistic model to a lay man and who never understands complexities of caste. Varna makes
caste system sustainable in India and is equally useful for aspiring caste groups going for mobilisation. Both
Varna and caste are useful tools in the hands of sociologist to understand the dynamics and mobilisation in
Indian society. Varna provides an ideological framework of reference to understand the economic identity and
reality of caste.

Srinivas on mobility in caste system

Prior to Srinivas it was perceived that caste is hierarchical determined by one's birth and every
caste is entitled to go for specific rules of marriage, rituals, food behaviour and forms of worship that was
unchallengeable. Colonial rulers, and to a large extent GS Ghurye develop the holistic image about caste and
Srinivas wanted to liberate sociology of India from this ideological bondage. In his book “caste in modern India
and social change in India” he has made an attempt to explain the dynamic nature of caste emphasising on
caste mobility.

When they think about caste we're reminded of the concept of purity and pollution. Unlike his predecessor
Srinivas gave importance to pollution.
He states that:

 pollution forbids an individual to undertake his daily routine activities,

 pollution makes distinction between man and God,
 pollution is contagious but the purity is non-transferable,
 finally pollution glorifies the distinction within the caste and between the caste.

There was significance of pollution and how pollution leads to separation and how people make
attempt to get rid of pollution are the instruments through which one can understand the dynamic nature of
caste in India. He considers that caste mobility is not just contemporary, since historic times different groups
of people have made attempts for caste mobility. However, this caste mobility has passed through three
different stages:

 search for ritual mobility,

 secular mobility is used as a medium for ritual mobility,
 secular mobility is considered as an end in itself.

These three phases of mobility is speaking about dynamism of caste systems throughout Indian
history. Speaking about first phase of mobility he indicated some non-Brahmins of South India migrated to
Tirumala Hills started operating as priest there and subsequently became Brahmins. Vaishnos of Bengal were
originally Shudras who under the influence of Bhakti teachings of Chaitanya’s, Sanskritised themselves and
successfully obtained Brahminic status. He also noticed that Buddhism, Jainism and bhakti movement
successfully offered platform to the people to buy Sanskritic values and way of life.

He concludes that Brahminic exclusivity has been questioned, challenged and adopted throughout
Indian history therefore it would be difficult to comprehend that caste is a static institution as presumed by
Indologists and colonial scholars.

During Mughal period and subsequently during the time of British rule caste mobility was greatly
accelerated. Nairs of Kerala ,Kayasthas of Bihar, Rashi Brahmins of Bengal were patronising Mughal rulers as a
result they got enormous access to wealth and power and subsequently used their secular credentials for ritual
modification. He collected empirical data from different parts of the country and finds out that several castes
have successfully gone for ritual mobility using their secular potentials. He realised that jati campaign has
improved the caste status of Bhumiars of Bihar, generosity has improved the social position of Lingayats. He
finds out that King's grace, migration and cross-cultural contact has considerably improved the social status of
Yadav, Kurmis and Jats.

Looking into this form of mobility present in different parts of the country he developed the
theory of Sanskritisation. His theory was tested by S Sidhu, MS Rao, William Weiser and all the studies
indicated how in different parts of the country, caste mobility is culturally being experienced. And Srinivas
looks at caste mobility, experience in different parts of the country. He finds out that attempt for mobility
has given way to intra-caste conflict in different pockets of the country.

He concludes by saying that attempt for caste mobility challenged by protest, resistance and at
times conflict therefore caste mobility unlike class mobility is not necessarily a smooth affair. Despite
mobility, in certain pockets of the country traditional form of domination of Brahmin priest is still present
although lower castes have been able to achieve the status of Rajputs.

The study of Rampur, a village gives out the fact that multiple forms of domination makes
appearance e.g. Jats dominate economic sphere, Brahmins dominate ritual sphere, Rajputs dominate political
sphere. This empirical study on caste indicates that:

 attempt for class mobility is making caste consciousness stronger,

 social distance among various caste groups is becoming fluid,
 inter-caste and intra-caste conflicts are accelerated,
 consolidation of caste is becoming stronger and impact of caste mobility is not universally same all over
the country.

Srinivas concludes that caste systems in India is undergoing through a series of transformation
but contradicting to Yogendra Singh he indicates that caste is not replaced by class in India but traditional
caste hierarchy also is not persistent in hierarchical form as spelt out by Indologists and colonialist scholars.
Caste is responding to the current of social change in contemporary India therefore more caste is becoming
weaker more it is becoming stronger.

Future of caste in modern India

Srinivas explains the future of caste in his book "Dominant Caste" and "20th century: New
Avtar Of Caste". In this book he looks into caste consolidation in modern India after 1970. He noticed that in
different parts of the country under the impact of Panchayati Raj system, Zamindari abolition act, green
revolution, cooperative movement a large body of non-Brahmins and non-Untouchables caste group have evolved
in a big way identifying themselves as dominant caste. Dominant caste is enormously dominant in political
economic sphere. Their traditional status was moderate therefore they can be considered as ‘emergent
Shudras’ who are no longer interested in Sanskritisation and rather focus their attention on secularisation .

Lingayats and Vokalingayats of Karnataka, Reddy’s in Andhra Pradesh, Yadav’s in UP, Bhumiar’s
in Bihar have gone for modern education, urban living, rural development programmes and glorifying past
consciousness and highlighting the historic cultural definition intended to capture state power. These dominant
caste either evolved to their own political parties or are joining major political parties of the country. These
dominant castes are identified as OBC who were highly numerous, greatly organised and determining that
destiny of Indian politics today. They are instrumental in dominating public sphere of Indian social life also.
This theory is further expanded by Ghanshyam Shah who claims that the rise of dominant caste is the story
of power politics indicating that caste operates in contemporary India as a reservoir of power and caste
leaders are emerging as power exerciser.

Therefore caste is as important to contemporary India as it was important historically but the
only difference is that the ritual role of caste is replaced by the secular role in Indian society today. Hence
caste-India is not replaced by class-India. People in India use their caste and class identity both in combination
and separation for different purposes at different points of time.

In his book "20th century – The New Avtar Of Caste" Srinivas is worried that different
segments of backward caste like Dalits and OBCs came together in 1990s standing opposite to dominant caste
having control over political power. He says that this type of political migration is largely driven by ideology
and if this ideological consolation sustains itself in India then there is a possibility of castlessness in political
domain. Unfortunately this political honeymoon broke down within a year and one segment of the backward
caste joined hands with other higher caste dominated by the party in power thereby compromising their
ideology, cultural past and giving more importance to their struggle for power domination. Hence interest-
based politics, vote bank politics glorified the emerging secular role of caste. Thus caste is not dead under the
influence of modernity rather modernity is making caste consciousness profound and stronger therefore in
conclusion he advocated that caste is a federal organisation responding to internal and external compulsions in
diverse ways without losing its essentialities and so past was as caste centric as present is and imagining India
without caste may be a constitutional vision but not an empirical reality.

Therefore caste never makes people, but people may caste. They call for support of caste for
different reasons and at different points of time. Hence caste is taking new incarnations in time and space
rather than disappearing from social, political, ideological and economic sphere of life in Indian society.
Louis Dumont – Centrality To The Understanding Of Caste
Louis Dumont came to India in 1968 with the objective of studying caste. He wrote the book
"Homo Hierarchies". Dumont was influenced by structural theory of Levy Strauss wherein he said that
Western theoretical model was not applicable to India. When Western scholars came to India they had
preconceived orientation and ideology though intensity differs from one society to another. To understand this
continuous, prominent structure of inequality he came to India. He said that Indologists studies caste from
textual orientation where a structural functionalist studies it from contextual perspective (MN Srinivas) but
as a matter of fact text and context cannot be separated. Text – what people must do; context says that
what people are doing.

Dumont believed that values are not absolutely changing as they are the cemented property of
culture and that values are held in differential content by the individuals. He believed that one should have a
sociology for India coming out of people themselves. Caste is a universal phenomena in case of India and caste
should be studied from Indian perspective. He believed that caste is a synthesis between text and context.
Louis Dumont alleged that the structuralists do not study the whole reality and keep their focus of study on
specific reality. He takes into consideration the writings of French and German scholars e.g. Emily Durkheim,
Hegel, Immanuel Kant and Marcell Mauss.

He said that caste is all pervasive institution present in Indian society since historic times and talks about;

 occupational specialisation (DoL),

 exclusivity of Brahminic position,
 social differences among different caste.

Occupational Specialisation: caste cannot change occupation because of the fact that they are
committed to cultural tradition. Values do not permit them to go for any other type of occupation. Division
of labour in case of caste is driven by cultural prescription rather than by economic logic. If they look at
caste, every caste is maintaining social difference from the other caste. How this social distance is
appropriated between two castes is subject to evaluation.

Dumont claimed that every caste is evolving its position in the hierarchical system in relation to
proximity/distance from the position of Brahmins i.e. Brahmins have become a reference group. He talks about
Hindu ideology and writes that things, beings, phenomena are part of two world i.e. Purity And Pollution e.g.
things – Ganga water; being – people and animal; phenomena – Sanskrit knowledge as a symbol of purity.
Therefore according to him purity and pollution are the ideas which guide People's action in India.
 Dumont uses ethano–sociological approach to caste. His sociology was primarily concerned with
the ideology of the caste system. His understanding of the caste lays emphasis on attributes of purity and
pollution. For caste is a set of relationship of economic, political and kinship systems which is sustained by
certain values which are most religious in nature. He says that caste is not a form of stratification and a
special form of inequality whose essence has to be deciphered by sociologist.He Identified hierarchy as the
essential value underlying the caste system supported by Hinduism. He calls caste system is a system of ideas
and values which is a formal ,comprehensible and a rational system. His analysis is based on a single principle –
the opposition of pure and impure for which he has been heavily criticised. He focused on the need to
understand the ideology of caste as reflected in the classical texts, historical examples etc. He advocated the
use of both Indological and structuralists approach to the study of caste system and village social structure in
India.

He points out that caste is not going to die out because caste is a product of consciousness
therefore caste was present in the past, is present today, and will be present in the future. He writes that
Brahmins live in the world of dignity, status and respect which is undiluted and other groups through
mobilisation opting class hierarchy but not caste hierarchy.

He also points out that division of labour is more driven by cultural values than by economic
necessities. No big shift has taken place in Brahmins habits and culture because the belief that giving
something material and receiving something spiritual even today makes man’s life happy; therefore people
never question Brahminic supremacy.

Criticism of Louis Dumont

Empirical evidences suggest that in many parts of the country Rajas were instrumental in
promoting lower caste into the position of higher castes. Brahmins in ancient times were living under the
patronage of the kings who were given political protection and revenue free lands, unfortunately Louis
Dumont's sociology never pays any attention to the politics of caste as it was over committed to the cultural
aspect of caste.

Louis Dumont's theory has been considered as stereotype, stiff and culture bound. He speaks in
the tone Brahmins therefore his book "New Munusmriti” is engaged in celebrating Brahminic exclusivity. Purity
– pollution dichotomy is a book view glorified by Louis Dumont that does not exist in a big way in empirical
India. Caste is not a system of ideology but a form of hierarchical practice driven by the principles of
domination and subordination, privileges and discrimination, security and anxiety and it’s not a product of
dichotomy between pollution and purity identically understood by every section of the society therefore
Dumont's views on caste is said to be speculative, imaginative and culturally loaded and hence unacceptable.

Jonathan Perry indicate that ritualistic and moral standard of individual can be determined by
both hereditary and achievement. Dumont's sociology is more committed to ritual merits of Brahmin procured
through their birth, however there are Saints, Sadhus who command more respect than Brahmins which
Dumont fails to understand. Therefore in India multiple ritual hierarchy is present indicating that Indian
society is more dynamic that cannot be studied by Brahminic centric structure theory of caste glorified by
Dumont. Dumont offered an ideal view of caste identical to Manu Smriti because it never explains what Indian
society ought to be.

Andre Beteille in his study finds out that different caste groups of Brahmins put clothes
differently, in different measures, use symbols differently, worship to different deities and they are also
engaged interpersonal conflict with each other. Therefore imagining Brahmin as a unified group living in the
world of purity and commanding respect from everybody is nice to hear but difficult to witness in empirical
context.

Dipankar Gupta finds out non-Brahminic reaction is not driven by respect e.g. Jats of Western
Uttar Pradesh consider Brahmins as greedy and their very presence in the village is considered inauspicious.
This is contradictory to Dumont's theory of caste where Brahmins are looked upon by the lower caste people
because they command respect and also because people they are guided by Hindu values. Many sociologists
doing empirical study have come with the fact that in many situations lower caste people do not accept the
cultural superiority of Brahmin and that Sanskritisation among them is not out of respect for Brahmin but is
a form of protest for their victimisation since historical times.

Criticism by Andre Beteille

Beteille says that Dumont calls European society as ‘Homoequalis’ and Indian society as
‘Homohierarchicus’. He's only reflexive about Brahminic domination present in India. Brahminic domination is
not totally absent in European society also (Pope domination). Hierarchy persists in India but it is a multiple
hierarchy but Dumont fails to understand this. Beteille says that hierarchy is going to stay in India but it will
not only be based upon caste grounds but also upon one’s access to wealth, power, education and that will
determine the position of an individual with respect to society.

Dumont is concerned only about one hierarchy i.e. caste hierarchy, he provides romantic vision of
India therefore one should liberate himself from Dumont's ideology to have a comprehensive understanding of
different kinds of hierarchy present in Indian social system. For example Beteille talks about reproduction of
family and occupation in contemporary India. Indicates that family wealth is transmitted from one generation
to another leading to poverty. There is also reproduction of occupation wherein cinema actresses children, civil
servants children, proffessors children are going for their parental occupation thus the linkage between family
and occupation and the transmission of wealth from one generation to another is bringing forward new forms
of inequality.

If the subject matter of Indian sociology is to study the possibilities of inequalities, their
outcomes, context and conflict than the sociologists must have to liberate themselves from the shackles of
caste. Caste is no longer driven by customary rules strongly followed by people therefore the shadow of caste
may appear in some spheres of life but the traditional role of caste is mostly and unfound.

Nationalists made an attempt to unite people irrespective of their caste and cultural
differences. Arya Samaj, Nationalist Movement, Gandhian reforms all provided a self confidence in the minds
of the people to ask for Justice. Dumont’s Sociology don't mention any such type of change;which did not
value Brahminic supremacy with respect but on the contrary tried to empower people (especially people
belonging to lower cast and Dalits) and weaken the hierarchical system of caste.

In conclusion, it can be advocated that Dumont's theory of caste may not be acceptable because
it sounds to greatly Brahminic, culture bound and textual. But despite these limitations it is Dumont's whose
study introduced an intellectual revolution in the field of sociology. Stereotype understanding of caste went
into the state of oblivion. Ethno-sociological matter was introduced into Indian sociology and Dumont offered
a ready-made answers to persistence of caste telling his readers that caste is a product of consciousness . It
is a child of Hindu ideology hence it will never change through the introduction of new public policy therefore
to kill caste system in India one has to get away from its bondage with Hindu cultural consciousness.

Andre Beteille on caste

Andre Beteille found out that multiple forms of inequality are present in the village and applying
weberian model of class and status he analysed the system of stratification in India. His understanding of
caste is highly reflexive, critical and distinctive. Unlike his predecessors he doesn't study caste as an end in
itself. He wrote that we have devoted too much of time writing on caste, but caste in India can share long
linkage and so India cannot be studied only from the standpoint of caste only.
 His concern was that Ghurye, DP Mukherjee and Srinivas studied social inequality in India from
caste perspective indicating that other forms of inequalities are produced and reproduced only by caste.
Beteille writes that in case of Bhadrolok in Bengal, in case of Bangerposhi in Bihar, in case Asrafins in Gujarat,
are highly respectable people not coming from any particular caste rather they are considered gentleman with
excellence, endowed with knowledge, judicial attributes, and thus highly respected by people at large.

He considers that in Indian society multiple hierarchies were present in traditional context driven
by caste, personal attributes, status, power, education and so on. He indicated that Indian sociology must
have to liberate itself from caste biasness. Sociology must have to pay attention to social change to examine
how different forms of hierarchical gradations are encountering different socio-cultural and economic processes
(socio – social movements; economic – development policies, industrialisation and modernity) and witnessing a
series of transformation.

He makes a distinction between the book view of India and field view of India indicating that
field view is highly mechanical and book view highly stereotypical therefore Indian sociology must have to strike
a balance between the both.

Beteille’s understanding of caste can be broadly explained under four distinctive head:

 his microscopic understanding of caste;

 his understanding of changing nature of caste;
 his reaction to Louis Dumont’s understanding of caste;
 his contemporary observation of caste in relation to class, race and power and a reaffirmation of caste
in public sphere of India (social reproduction and cultural production of caste).

Microscopic understanding of caste: Beteille’s writes that his first encounter with the caste started with his
exposure to maternal grandmother’s behaviour that was purely Brahminic, Sanskritic. His exposure to caste
was realised through his field experience at Siripuram village of Tanjore district of Tamil Nadu. In his book
"Caste, Class And Power" indicates that:

 Weberian theory of multiple dimensions to stratification can be applicable to village India.

 In Siripuram village he finds out multiple hierarchies present and each hierarchy is influencing another
archaic and gets influenced by them as well. When caste hierarchy is determined by birth, class
hierarchy is determined by people's access to unequal wealth because of differential control over
agricultural land, modern trade and employment opportunities.
 Differential position in political structure is explained in terms of one's network Of political relationship
that is now extended from the village to the capital of India.
 While studying caste indicates that people of the village are largely divided into three distinctive
divisions such as Brahmins, non-Brahmins and Adi-Brahmins (ancient inhabitants/untouchables). These three
major caste group consists of 50 to 20 caste units who have now come together to distinguish themselves
from others . This compartmentalisation can largely be attributed to the rise of backward class movement,
consolidation of non-Brahmins as against Brahmins and residual groups are identified as Adi Dravidians.

Brahmins in relation to non-Brahmins manifest inequality visible in terms of residence,

occupation, dress, language, rituals, speech, personal conduct, rules of marriage and so on. However within a
particular caste cleavage one finds out that there are large number of sub caste and sub sub caste present.
These divisions manifest difference from each other in a very distinctive manner. Taking the case Brahmins
Beteille finds out that these segments and sub segments are distinguished from each other in terms of sacred
symbols they carry. Number of threads they carry in their sacred read, kind of clothes and size of cloth they
put on and doctrinal affinity. These differences are so holistic and comprehensive that a particular caste group
will always search for spouse from that particular caste group and not from any of its sub caste groups or
sub sub caste groups. Therefore intra-caste differences are also exclusive and hence persist even within caste
and so in Indian villages both intra-caste and inter-caste conflicts are significantly visible.

Beteille looks into the impact of modernisation on caste system indicating that modern trade,
employment opportunities have injected class difference within caste and sub caste. As a result relationship
between caste and sub caste has become highly dynamic. So when a person is going for marriage he takes into
consideration both caste and class identity and sub sub sub caste identity. If the spouse is not available in the
sub sub sub caste than he goes for sub sub caste alliance or sub caste alliance or caste alliance. Therefore
caste is increasing in India but the basic structure of caste is highly undiluted. Hence caste is experiencing
change in continuity rather than being subjected to complete breakdown as concluded by modernisation theory
of Yogendra Singh and Marxist theory of DP Mukherjee.

In his book "Caste Old And New" Beteille makes an attempt to examine the changing nature of
caste. He considers that between different caste groups there is present proportional inequality and among
various sub caste groups there is present distributive inequality. Distributive inequality compartmentalise the
sub caste groups wherein each group goes in search of economic and political domination which is becoming
quite common in Indian society. In the past different groups of Brahmin forgetting the interpersonal
difference had control over land, political power and social status but since 1920s the non-Brahmins of South
India have gone for mobilisation leading to backward class movement, formation of Dravidian party and
consolidation of non-Brahmins in political economic structure.

As a result Brahmins of Tanjore have become urban bound, taking modern occupation,
participating in modern trade and some of them have slowly sold out their land to non-Brahmins. Therefore
imagining India without respecting to social change is highly injudicious. Hence among Brahmins class-distinction,
power distinction, educational distinction and personal distinction has clearly surfaced therefore difference
within the caste is becoming much more visible and wider. Thus this inequality is entering into intra-caste
relationship.

Beteille considers inducement of class element into caste and sub caste is making caste system
highly complex. Man in India is driven by multiple identity of which caste and class are highly pronounced.
However one still can notice that social change in India is restrictive because people go for occupational choices
on the basis of caste and cultural considerations. Therefore Brahmins who were priest in temples are teaching
in village schools and we find out their children are becoming university professors likewise non-Brahmins are
going for civil administration, politics, trade and military services indicating how caste old is replaced by caste
new rather on caste in India being completely uprooted by the elements of class. Therefore Beteille indicates
the traditional Indian society was relatively closed and largely static but slowly they are evolving into a
dynamic society and the factors responsible for this change can be explained in terms of:

 change in the nature of hierarchical gradation,

 change in the vertical relationship between individuals and families and
 change in the hierarchical system of values.

Thus one may conclude that Beteille’s sociology is a sociology of protest against caste focused
society. He suggests young sociologists to liberate themselves from Indologicy and Marxian theory to develop a
dynamic understanding about social changes and social inequality.
 Untouchability – Forms And Perspectives
Thinkers and scholars gave different views on untouchables, no unified view is present. Textual
understanding of untouchables is different from the reforms leaders reference to untouchables. Conceptualising
untouchables in the horizon of Indian history is a sociological challenge. Untouchables and their presence in
India is primarily mentioned in classical Dharma Shastra like Rig Veda. It is mentioned in Rig Veda that there
were a class of people present who were known as ‘Achuts’ and identified as Chandals. Social discrimination
associated with them is legitimised in Manusmriti, Mahabharata, Ramayana. The famous incidents of Eklavya,
Karana and there's dislinkage from mainstream life talks about culturally prescriptive form of inequality
present in India.

Manusmriti writes that if Chandals commit a crime it is natural and instinctive but if Brahmins
commit a crime then it's a lapse. It further suggest that Chandals being violators of ethics, they should stay
away from mainstream life and they were subjected to capital punishment. Different Sanskritic texts have
justified to the fact of practice of untouchability. Hence how untouchability persist throughout Indian history
is described in detail by PN Prabhu in his book "Hindu social organisation" and by GS Ghurye in his book "caste
and race in India". The concepts of ‘Purushartha’ and ‘Samakhya’ philosophy speaks about the difference
among the people in terms of attributes driven by birth.

The Hindu culture justify their dislocation in Hindu society and legitimise their exploitation and
disprivileges. Such disprivileges are exhaustive and Ghurye explains that in terms of civil and religious
disabilities, restriction on food, drinks and social commensality, racial separation and restrictive occupational
choice and endogamous marriages. Endogamy was designed for the reproduction of caste and legitimisation to
caste-based inequality in India.

Untouchability From Reformist Perspective

The early social reformists made a distinction between caste and religion. They believed that
untouchability is a pathological product of caste system that divides people into distinctive groups thereby
destroying the unitary character of Hinduism. Therefore they wanted reforms in caste systems and abolition
of untouchability. This program was initiated by Dayanand Saraswati and subsequently glorified by Brahmo
Samaj and also by other nationalist leaders of India. The Indian nationalist starting from Vivekananda to
Bankim Chandra always said that the caste “and unity among the Hindus must be glorified to evolve
nationalistic consciousness”. Aurobindo Ghosh, Bankim Chandra, Gandhiji started rebellion against caste
protecting Hinduism. Gandhiji in his article “my heart bleeds”, “caste must go”, “untouchability – a crime
against God” exhibited fundamental attack against caste practices. He believed that caste is a perversion of
Varna. Varna system was giving importance to division of labour on the basis of individuals,it never prohibited
anybody from taking any occupation on the basis of his birth therefore Varna system was holistic, inclusive
and egalitarian. He cites the examples of several monks and Rishis who were originated from humble
backgrounds and ultimately obtained supra – Brahminic status.

Gandhiji interpreted caste as a degenerated from Varna system created for the division of
society. Gandhiji believed that if a person was a assigned a particular role in society, it did not mean that he
was absolved of his duties towards others. A Brahmin cannot not absolve himself from the responsibility of
physical labour and a Shudra cannot be denied his right to acquire knowledge

Gandhiji said that over a period of time Varna was forgotten, capabilities carried no importance
and birth started determining the status and occupation of people transforming egalitarian Indian society into
exploitative, caste bound, hierarchical therefore caste must go to bring back our past glory. Caste is a historic
mistake and thus every human being in India should be considered as children of God. All our souls are derived
from common supra soul thus untouchability as a practice is a crime against man, God and society. Hence it
must be wiped out. Gandhiji called untouchables as "Harijans" and asked the member of Congress to live with
Harijan family, dine with them and suggested the Harijans to get away from polluting occupation and also
advocated Harijans to go for inter-caste marriages, reading Sanskrit text, to operate as priest, teacher and so
on. Gandhiji considered Varna system ensured that Indian society is endowed with all occupational groups
therefore people do not get exposed to market and utilitarian values therefore he writes that "it is because
of Varna system and Hinduism that man in India is more concerned about spiritual pleasure than materialistic
wealth like people of West”.

Gandhiji further suggested that different sub caste, sub sub caste should forget their
interpersonal differences and should go for their lost Varna identity. Hence common commitments to Varna
and common association with Hinduism can result in unity of faith and unity of action among the people of
India.

Some of the most prominent disabilities in social, economic and political fields are:

 social disability,
 no social contact,
 socially cut off caste,
 economic disability,
 educational disability,
 no drawing of water, user public will, bathing in public tanks etc,
 no ownership of property,
 low-income,
 exploitation at work and less wage payment,
 political disability,
  religious disability and
 administrative disabilities.

Class Approach To Untouchability

Gandhiji upheld the “ Varna Ashrama Dharma" he said that Varna is not the glorification of
caste and religion in India, rather it is a search for an egalitarian, inclusive, pluralistic society where social
positions are attributed to the people on the basis of their capabilities and merit. Thus Gandhiji's distinction
between Varna and caste and race support to Varna system is an indication to his desire for the abolition of
untouchability and the rise of humanistic society driven by fraternity and merit. Gandhiji believed that
untouchability is a result of utilitarian interest of upper caste. He said that caste is a pathological element
introduced in Indian society by the upper caste for materialistic pleasures.

When Gandhiji was taking the lead in Indian National Congress session in 1920, removal of untouchability was
incorporated as one among many constructive programmes. He founded the “Harijan Sevak Sangh” and
underwent 21 days fast as a form of protest against the closing of temples to the untouchables.

Gandhiji and Ambedkar involved In Long Debates Over Caste

Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891 – 1956) was a Dalit who assumed the role of social, political and
spiritual leader first for the balance and subsequently for the whole nation. He gave the country a democratic
Constitution; as a spiritual leader he revived the legacy of Buddha. On the other hand Ram Manohar Lohia –
a socialist by ideology championed the cause of the disadvantaged sections of India including minorities and
women. They both identified that caste system has degenerated Indian society and wanted to annihilate it.

Ambedkar recognised that the existence of four Varna is in the Hindu social order is primarily
based on the class and not on individuals. He conceded that in the Hindu social order there is no room for
individual merit and no consideration of individual justice. If a person has a privilege it is not because it is due
to him/her as an individual. The privilege comes with the class, and if he/she is found to enjoy it, it is
because he/she belongs to that class. Conversely an individual suffers not because he/she deserves it by virtue
of he/her conduct; rather it is because he/she belongs to that caste. We analysed the impact of the division
of society into Varnas on the Hindu social order. He argued that because of this division the Hindu social
order has failed to uphold liberty, equality and fraternity – the three essentials of a free social order. He says
that the doctrine that different classes were created from different parts of the divine body has generated
the belief that it must be divine will that they should remain separate and distinct. It is this belief which has
created in the Hindu an instinct to be different, to be separate and to be distinct from the rest of his
fellow Hindus.
 Gandhiji suggested that untouchables should get out of occupation which promote or carry
stigma or pollution. He also encouraged inter-caste marriages. Ambedkar said that untouchability is the
question of power and domination and it has nothing to do with birth.

Gandhiji said that untouchability is a product of mistakes whereas Ambedkar says that it is a
result of dominant castes materialistic needs. Dr Ambedkar said that no exploitation would have been taking
place if there did not exist appropriate ideological support and he believed that this ideological support can
come from Samakhya philosophy,Buddhism, etc.

Gandhiji said that people from one Varna can move to another Varna on the basis of merit
whereas Ambedkar said that Varna system talks about graded inequality which cannot be questioned and is
persistent in all-time. Samakhya philosophy tells that people are born with qualities which are ‘Sattvic’ and’
‘Tamasic’. Shudras were always associated with Tamasic qualities for example if somebody committed crime
then it was assumed that it must be a Shudra therefore without committing a crime one is admitting it.
Ambedkar wanted untouchables to go for individualism, complete freedom to pursue their own choice of
occupation.

Gandhiji wanted stability through unity and Ambedkar said stability is not that important as
equality. Dr Ambedkar said that the Dalits in case of India are culturally different,they are subclass or
underclass. Dalit man cannot raise his head, he is speechless, non-articulatve and is always suffering with self-
doubt. Therefore to protect the interest of the Dalits compensation and reforms are not enough in fact
constitutional protection should be given to them and thus he believed that the problem of all degrees if class
of subordinates can be resolved by uniting them under one head by the Constitution.

Note: Also refer to the social religious movement in Maharashtra and South India discussed in previous
chapters.
 Challenges of Social Transformation
Crisis of Development

Displacement

Development-induced displacement is the forcing of communities and individuals out of their

homes, often also their homelands, for the purposes of economic development. It is a subset of forced
migration. It has been historically associated with the construction of dams for hydroelectric
power and irrigation purposes but also appears due to many other activities, such as mining, airports,
industrial plants, railways, road developments, urbanization, etc. Development-induced displacement is a
social problem affecting multiple levels of human organization, from tribal and village communities to well-
developed urban areas. Use of coercion or force of any nature by State is central to the idea of
development induced displacement. At the international level, it is viewed as a violation of human rights.

In India, there are a rising number of protests against compulsory acquisition of land for
construction of manufacturing units such as Tata’s Nano car in Singur, in which 997 acres of agricultural
land was acquired to set up a factory for one of the cheapest cars in Asia, (the project was subsequently
shifted to (Gujarat) or for developing Special Economic Zone such as Nandigram or construction of large
dams like Sardar Sarovar Dam on the river Narmada, which famously led to a cancellation of grant by
World Bank due to protests under the argument that the tribal population was getting displaced under
unfair conditions among other reasons such as environmental impact of the project. The effects of
displacement spill over to generations in many ways, such as loss of traditional means of employment,
change of environment, disrupted community life and relationships, marginalization, a profound psychological
trauma and more.

The Tehri Dam in the outer Himalayas in Uttar Pradesh, when finished will submerge Tehri
town and nearly 100 villages. Since the dam was sanctioned in 1972, local people have been opposing the
dam and resisting its construction. Scientists, environmentalists and other groups have also opposed this
dam. Little is done to ensure proper rehabilitation and compensation for nearly a lakh of people who will
be uprooted from their homes as a result of this dam, with little hope of rehabilitation, as no alternative
land is available. There is also emotional and psychological trauma caused by forcibly removing people from
their homeland where their families have lived for centuries.

With the increasing pressures on land due to urbanization, rapid economic development, increasing
infrastructure requirements etc., especially in a fast growing economy like India, the acquisition of land by
the Government has increased. Hundreds of villages acquired by the Indian government for Greater Good
and development purposes, as a result of which, millions of people become displaced from their homes.

Development policy in case of India is always engineered by state like which state to choose,
how much money should be allotted? How much capital and labour to be employed? How much
employment will be generated? Development at what cost and benefit to move?

When development displacement is taking place people not only lose their right over land and
economy, they are larger implications also i.e. marginalisation of citizens in their own country. When one
speaks about development, displacement becomes inevitable. One must have to look into the multiple cost
of development before formulating rehabilitation policy. Development leads to landlessness, homelessness,
isolation and detachment from common property resources therefore development displacement is having
ecological, social, emotive and cultural connotations.

Rehabilitation policy largely suffer from series of limitations, such as:

 the land given to the displaced are mostly non-productive, non-fertile which cannot guarantee
livelihood to the people.
 Most of the tribes are dependent on common property resources like forestland, pasture land, River
beds which are not compensated.
 The alternative land given to the people carries higher economic cost in comparison to estimated
land cost in the protected area.

The displaced population is supposed to pay the differential amount which they find it
difficult and so they lose their right over the land. Different studies on the displacement points out that
traditional skills do not carry much importance in new areas as a result joblessness and marginalisation
becomes intensive.

Rehabilitation is not the re-enactment of old society in new place. New form of
interpersonal relationships, and new hierarchies, new social organisation appear in rehabilitation which people
failed to negotiate leading to their marginalisation.

Development displacement leads to distress migration and the worst victim of it are women
and children, therefore development displacement is having social cost, cultural cost, ecological cost, human
cost than just having economic cost. Protest and movement against displacement largely speaks about a
humanistic, culturally and ecologically sensitive rehabilitation programme that could make development
inclusive, people centric and environment friendly.

Therefore before devising any rehabilitation policy the government has to keep certain important things in
mind like:
  before the introduction of any development project an estimation should be made about the value
and intensity of displacement. Keeping that in mind an alternative site for rehabilitation should be
identified that should not be far away from the original place of residence of the displaced people.
 Common property resources should be re-enacted in the rehabilitation colony and the entire
community will have access over it.
 The oustees should be educated, trained to benefit from development project therefore, their stake
should first be protected before project related job is allocated to others.
 Sanitation, education, health care, community and other infrastructural support should be extended
to them on a continuous basis within the rehabilitated area.
 Before introducing the project people, state and administration should have a mutual dialogue to
determine the development programme, strategy for displacement and modalities of competition.
Optimum care should be taken to ensure that ecological cost and social disparities kept at a
minimum level. Since India's independence development is considered inevitable for economic growth
of the country, but the victims of these development are already marginalised group located in the
backward regions. Therefore development policies are marginalising the marginalised for which
antidevelopment programs are getting momentum in various parts of the country.

Ramachandra Guha writes that environmental movement in India is not grounded on

skepticism, rather it is addressing to the fundamental questions like civil rights, political rights and
economic rights of the citizens of a democratic society which is taken away from them by the protector
of these rights i.e. the state itself.

Environmental movement in case of India is a conflict between state and its citizens based on
a question that whether the basic properties essential for the survival of a community is people’s property
or the property of state. This contest is a manifestation of social transformation rooted on the ground
wherein it is assumed that people’s perception of development stands dialectical to the strategy for
development adopted by the state and government.

Government of India respecting to People's association with common property resources and
balance between ecology and development has reformulated a blueprint for rehabilitation policy in the year
2008 that carries advisory part than binding character on state governments. However, recent debate on
environmental questions in internal sphere and protest by indigenous communities to protect their
livelihood has raised some serious questions which needs to be answered keeping in mind the sustainability
and inclusiveness of development. Thus it can be concluded that, the grave consequences of such
displacements at the very least require legislations and policies that address not only the issue of
compensation, but also the larger issues of resettlement, rehabilitation and participation in negotiation,
which can mitigate the darker side of land acquisition for development.
Environmental problems

The environmental problems in India are growing rapidly. The increasing economic development
and a rapidly growing population that has taken the country from 300 million people in 1947 to 1.2
billion people today is putting a strain on the environment, infrastructure, and the country’s natural
resources. Industrial pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, rapid industrialization, urbanization, and land
degradation are all worsening problems. Overexploitation of the country's resources; be it land or water and
the industrialization process has resulted environmental degradation of resources. Environmental pollution
is one of the most serious problems facing humanity and other life forms on our planet today. India’s
environmental problems are exacerbated by its heavy reliance on coal for power generation. "More than 80
per cent of energy is produced from coal, a fuel that emits a high amount of carbon and greenhouse gases.

India has seen a five-fold increase in industrial production in the last thirty years. However,
issues related to development in India are similar to issues faced by other developing countries. Land
degradation, which occurs through the natural and man-made processes of wind erosion, water erosion, and
water-logging, has, been identified as one of the priority concerns in India. The result of such degradation
is the loss of invaluable nutrients and lower food grain production. Poor land use practices and management
are responsible for the rapid land degradation in India.

Loss of biodiversity is of great concern to India since many plant and animal species are
severely threatened by a destruction of their habitat and an over-exploitation of resources. A large number
of species are either endangered or on the verge of extinction, both of which can be attributed to a lack
of policy and institutional mechanisms.

Air pollution with special reference to vehicular pollution in cities. Air pollution in India can
broadly be attributed to rapid industrialisation, energy production, urbanisation, commercialisation, and an
increase in the number of motorised vehicles.

The availability of fresh water is going to be the most pressing problem in India over the
coming decades.The stress on water resources is a result of multiple factors namely urban growth,
increased industrial activities, intensive farming, and the overuse of fertilisers and other chemicals in
agricultural production. Untreated water from urban settlements and industrial activities, and run-off
from agricultural land carrying chemicals, are primarily responsible for the deterioration of water quality
and the contamination of lakes, rivers, and groundwater aquifers.

lndustrial development has contributed significantly to economic growth in India; however, not
without an environmental price, India has seen a fivefold increase in industrial production in the last three
decades. With the rapid pace of globalization and focus on manufacturing sector it is expected to further
accelerate. With coal accounting for 80% of total primary energy consumption, this industrial development
has been fueled by a relatively high-polluting energy source. Not only is industrial pollution increasing public
health risks, but abatement efforts also are consuming a significant portion of India's GDP.For a large
number of people staying in the vicinity the power plant is a source of misery. Their problems comes from
the daily emission tonnes of fly ash by the coal plants. The fly ash which is a by-product of coal
combustion and other materials for power generation, have traces of alumina, various other toxic heavy
metals and carcinogenic elements. It has adversely affected the quality of life in a large area.

The creation of Dams has submerged a large area including number of villages affecting
peoples livelihood. Not only does the dams displaced a large number of people but it has also affected
biodiversity and submerged forests and eco zones which are of vital importance.

Opencast mines wreck havoc on the environment, it destroys the forest areas around it,
pollutes rivers tanks and underground water resources. It causes several kinds of ailments and lung disorders
to the people living around the mining area. When these opencast mines are abandoned, it does not lead
to re-growth of the ecology in and around the damaged area. Thus it does permanent damage to the
environment.

Thus most environmental issues are related either to interaction between human populations
and natural resources or factors associated with the increasing human population. However, the
environmental issues and concerns of developing and developed countries differ. Priority environmental issues
identified by India are in the areas of poverty elimination, education and health care; land degradation; air
pollution; loss of biodiversity; management of fresh water resources and management of hazardous waste.
These environmental challenges arise out of developmental activities and the biggest challenge is to
implement development that will lead to greater equity, growth and sustainability.
Addressing sustainability

Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use, that aims to meet human needs while
preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for
generations to come.

Poverty and a degraded environment are closely inter-related, especially where people depend
for their livelihoods primarily on the natural resource base of their immediate environment. Restoring
natural systems and improving natural resource management practices at the grassroots level are central to
a strategy to eliminate poverty. The survival needs of the poor force them to continue to degrade an
already degraded environment. Removal of poverty is therefore a prerequisite for the protection of the
environment. Diversion of common and marginal lands to ‘economically useful purposes’ deprives the poor of
a resource base which has traditionally met many of their sustenance needs.

While conventional economic development leads to the elimination of several traditional

occupations, the process of sustainable development, guided by the need to protect and conserve the
environment, leads to the creation of new jobs and of opportunities for the reorientation of traditional
skills to new occupations.

Several traditional practices that are sustainable and environment friendly continue to be a
regular part of the lives of people in developing countries. These need to be encouraged rather than
replaced by more ‘modern’ but unsustainable practices and technologies.

Development decisions regarding technology and infrastructure are a major determinant of

consumption patterns. It is therefore important to evaluate and make development decisions which
structurally lead to a more sustainable society.

An environmental perspective must guide the evaluation of all development projects,

recognizing the role of natural resources in local livelihoods. This recognition must be informed by a
comprehensive understanding of the perceptions and opinions of local people about their stakes in the
resource base.

Water governance arrangements should protect ecosystems and preserve or restore the
ecological integrity of all natural water bodies and their catchments. This will maintain the wide range of
ecological services that healthy ecosystems provide and the livelihoods that depend upon them.

Biomass is, and will continue for a long time to be, a major source of fuel and energy,
especially for the rural poor. Recognizing this fact, appropriate mechanisms must be evolved to make such
consumption of biomass sustainable, through both resource management and the promotion of efficient and
minimally polluting technologies.
 The traditional approaches to natural resource management such as sacred groves and ponds,
water harvesting and management systems, etc., should be revived by creating institutional mechanisms
which recapture the ecological wisdom and the spirit of community management inherent in those systems.

Globalization as it is taking place today is increasing the divide between the rich and the poor. It has to
be steered so that it serves not only commercial interests but also the social needs of development.

Global business thrives on, and therefore encourages and imposes, high level of homogeneity in
consumer preferences. On the other hand, for development to be locally appropriate and sustainable, it
must be guided by local considerations which lie in cultural diversity and traditions. Therefore recognition
at the policy level, of the significance of diversity, and the need to preserve it, is an important
precondition for sustainable development.

Integrating highly-sophisticated modern technology with traditional practices sometimes

produces the most culturally-suited and acceptable solutions, which also makes them more viable. This
trend should be encouraged.

All members of society are the stakeholders of sustainable development. Women make up half
of this group. Affirmative action to ensure representation and power to women in local governance, and
appropriate capacity building, are necessary to make them effective and equal partners in the development
process. Social groups which have been traditionally discriminated against must be represented in local
governance and empowered to ensure that they become effective and mainstream partners in development.

Many policies were framed either before sustainable development became a major concern or
in a sectoral perspective. These need to be reviewed from the point of view of sustainable development.
All future policies must be guided by considerations of sustainable development. Areas lacking policies should
be identified and adequate policies compatible with the imperatives of sustainable development framed,
taking into account successful examples, of policies and initiatives in similar areas.
Violence against women

Violence against women, has to be seen in the context of the Indian society in transition
which has committed itself to the values of equality and justice, but which is unable to make the
dominant socio-economic segments and the male population relinquish their traditionally held rights and
power over the weaker segments and women. In many spheres of life, such as marriage customs,
occupations, norms of everyday social behaviour, there is a cultural lag, and even a backlash when the
hitherto powerless groups seek to demand their newly available rights. Violence thus becomes both a
symptom and a cause of social tensions.

The types of violence against women cover a wide range: domestic violence including 'dowry
deaths', rape, widow immolation (sati), child marriage, femal infanticide and foeticide, forced prostitution
,eve-teasing, sexual harassment in public places, and pornography. The three types of violence which are
culture specific to India are sati, deaths related to dowry demands, and the use of sex determination tests
for female foeticide.

Domestic violence is usually perpetrated on young married women in their affinal homes. It
takes many forms like beating, torture, verbal abuse, starving, locking-up, imposing excessive work burden,
denying money for basic household expenses, sexual abuse, etc. Quite often, it results in murder, but
equally or more often in driving the woman to suicide. Many cases of murder are camouflaged as suicide. In
a majority of the cases, husbands and in-law are implicated. The reasons are many — suspicion about the
wife's fidelity, her childlessness, not bearing a son, disputes about household matters, wife's protests about
husband alcoholism, husband's infatuation with another woman, etc. Complaints in these cases are rarely
registered; if registered, the culprits are rarely apprehended; if apprehended, they are rarely brought to
court; and if brought to court, they are rarely convicted. The rare cases of the culprits being brought to
trial are the result of social action groups and women's group publicizing the case so that public pressure is
exerted.

Reflecting an atrocities within private space, Tulsi Patel points out that age of marriage,
frequency of pregnancy, women's health, their right over food are all determined by traditional custom and
conventions than by choice of women. Women are assumed to take their traditional role of preparing food
and produce children. Nivedita Menon writes that gender gap in education can be attributed to problems
of dowry. The birth of girl child is seen as a future liability and so in states like Punjab, Haryana and
some parts of Rajasthan they never see the light of the day i.e. technological aid is used to selectively
determine and abort female fetuses.

Dowry related torture of young brides is a form of organised violence. A newly-wed girl
stands vulnerable to organise vulnerable to the organised violence of members of extended Hindu family.
Incidents of dowry torture are accelerating with the progression of modernity in India. MN Srinivas calls
dowry as modern-day Sati.

Rape is a common crime against women all over the world. It is grossly under-reported
because of the stigma attached to the victim. Even when reported, the culprit is rarely apprehended; and
if he is ever brought to trial, attempts are made to exonerate him by casting aspersions on the woman's
moral character. The high risk categories are young girls (including minor girls) in squatter settlements.
Another major category is that of low caste and tribal women who are molested when their community
launches a struggle for its rights. Rape is used in these cases as a form of retaliation and backlash against
the community in question. Women belonging to religious and other minority communities also become
victims during communal riots. The army and various paramilitary forces have been offenders in politically
sensitive areas. The victimization of women during riots is common. In rare but much publicized cases,
middle class women have been victimized for political vendetta.

Child marriage has been the Hindu practice for centuries, and the lower age limit at
marriage, set at 18 years by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, is often flouted. The physical injury to girls
due to early consummation of marriage and early pregnancies can be fatal, while the emotional strain of
domestic responsibilities at an immature age compounds the problem.

Prostitution has registered an alarming increase. It is a highly organized crime which takes
place despite the Prevention of Immoral Traffic in Women Act. Poverty in rural areas makes women and
girls easy victims of the prostitution racket, and their condition is pitiable. But the women rescued from
brothels and sent to their families face rejection, while their fate in rescue homes is also quite bad.

Eve-teasing is sexual harassment of women in crowded public places, common in large cities as
well as in village. Until recently, the police did not register any complaints of this type, and even now the
authorities seem to be unaware that there is a special department to handle such cases.

Malavika Karlekar writes that domestic violence is regular, expandable, more intensive in case
of urban India and highly present among people belonging to upper and middle class. She Indicates that
women in case of India are subjected to “Devi-Dasi dichotomy” indicating that more women make sacrifice
more she is treated as Devi and more she is proclaiming writes more she is looked down upon subjected to
mental and physical agony.

Violence against women requires a multi-pronged effort. It requires raising the awareness of
women regarding their rights, but more importantly, providing a strong support system for women in
distress. At present, there are several women's organizations in various cities which provide temporary
shelter, moral support, legal aid, assistance in getting jobs, etc. There are also the traditional organizations
which provide rescue homes for women, but which usually do not emphasize economic self-reliance for
women. A trend has, however, started for running training programmes, legal literacy classes, etc.

Such support centres are too few to handle the large number of victimized women.
Education through the mass media, schools, and informal groups must emphasize the rights of women, and
simultaneously reorient boys and men to their responsibilities and their obligation to treat women as
equals. These will not change society overnight. Providing independent means of livelihood for women,
playing down the notion of marriage as the only destiny for women, and equalizing power relations in the
hierarchical family structure have to accompany other efforts. Sensitization of the police, government
officials and the judiciary will need to be done. The National Commission on Women can, if given enough
powers and autonomy, go a long way in restoring confidence in the State.
Ethnic conflicts

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other,
through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a
shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. It is highly biologically self-
perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common
language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith.

In case of India ethnicity has many facets, for instance during India's freedom struggle there
is strong glorification of North-South divide. It was apprehended at on the event of India's independence
Brahminic, Sanskritic North Indian culture would be imposed on indigenous non-Sanskritic Dravidian peasant
culture. Thus a secessionist movement in case of Tamil Nadu got momentum. Reflecting on this movement
Ghanshyam Shah found out that Tamil Brahmins were the first one to go for modern education, trade and
commerce. They went for modernisation without compromising Sanskritik values as a reaction to this, non-
Brahmins went for Secularisation and modernity rejecting Sanskritisation. Therefore caste was weak in
South India, communal disparity was minimum, political awareness was high. This development disparity
between South and North India led to an apprehension that after India's independence class values,
orthodox religion still strong in case of North India will be transported back to South India. This
apprehension was the foundation to Tamil nationalism.

Subsequently ethnic conflicts is manifested in case of Assam during 1990s. Migrant Bengali
population have monopoly over school, trade, public services as against endogenous people. In a study in
Assam, it was found out that major source of income in Assam is extraction of oil, coal and tea
plantation. All these natural resources are either controlled by state or non-Asamese . Most of the people
working in these sectors are the outsiders therefore the visible economic and social difference between
insider and outsiders led to ethnic conflict between them.

In case of Meghalaya conflict between Khasi and Garo tribes and in case of Manipur the
conflict between Naga and Kuki tribes has led to various protest movements demanding statehood. In case
of Meghalaya, the conflict is not a product of cultural difference between tribes and sub-tribes. All the
tribes are equally concerned about access over the progressive modernity. They want state for themselves
on the basis of their interests so that they can have maximum access over power ,educational and
employment.

In case of Manipur the root of ethnic conflicts is the control over the public institutions like
Tribal Advisory Council, District Autonomous Council that looks after land, forest, mining and other
developmental activities. Of late "sons of the soil" is also getting glorified.
 In case of Maharashtra where the idea of ‘Mumbaikar’ is glorified and a campaign is
spearheaded to drive out non-Marathi population from the state. It is further indicated that acceleration
of poverty among the sons of the soil because of employment, lack of access over education is attribute to
the fact that large chunk of migrant population from other parts of the country have settled down in
case of Maharashtra. As a result the conflict between Maharastrian and North Indian is a recent
manifestation of ethnic conflict as it was in 1960’s between Maharastrian and South Indian.

Reflecting on evolving form of ethnic tensions , it is indicated that ethnic conflict is a

product of regional imbalance in development, comparative evaluation of deprivation and the search for
empowerment through the creation of state on the basis of ethnic identity.

In 1980s tension and conflict arose over the issue of language. The government’s desire to
create a wider national movement in an otherwise segmental ethnic society expedited tensions in several
parts of the country. The Government selected Hindi as the national language to create a national
community by joining all the members of the different ethnic communities. This attempt at ‘unity in
diversity’ had adverse effect on the Indian population. We have evidences of violence in the South
e.g.Tamil Nadu, where severe rioting took place over the Hindi issue. According to the non-Hindi speaking
people , the language policy of the government meant an advantage for the Hindi speakers, who are
perceived to dominate the economic institutions and have political authority.

Ethnic conflicts indicate that whatever be the manifest cause - language, region or religion -
the latent cause is not rooted in cultural disparity. Conflicting economic and political interests form the
basis of the latent cause. The tensions generally arise when a minority group feels deprived of an equal
position in either the economic or political sphere as compared to the majority group, uses the primary
ties to motivate and activate their ethnic group against the dominant group. For instance, the Hindu Sikh
conflict was between peoples who were not culturally different, but rather were well-assimilated group.
Thus, we may say, that ethnic conflicts arose not because of some common goals but because of conflicting
interests.
Communalism

The concept of community in sociology carries different meaning from that of popular
conceptualisation of community. Sociologically speaking community refers to a small body of people directly
related to each other sharing, and emotion, have regular face-to-face relationship and are unified by
common norms, values and customs.

Classical sociologists following this definition were making a distinction between community
(simple tribal society, village community, peasant community) as against modern society driven by
contractual relationship (teachers, doctors, engineers, etc).

In case of India communal conflict is primarily understood as a conflict between religious communities
therefore communal conflict is distinguished from caste conflict and ethnic conflicts.

Marxist historian Bipin Chandra in his book "class and communalism in India" indicates, when
we go for class conflict we potentially fight against class enemy for the progressive transformation of
society. We kill each other and destroy the property of each other and so communal conflict is anti-
people, anti-development, anti-progress, anti-social, and anti-human mobilisation. He makes a distinction
between minority communalism and majority communalism. He indicates minority communalism is more
dangerous than majority communalism. It is because communal apprehension or passion can promote
voluntaristic unity among the minority. But in case of majority when one group glorify communal passion,
it is rejected by many others who hold liberal point of view within the same community.

He indicates that Hindu communal forces could never mobilise support from entire community
and so they are reduced into isolated voices but are still engaged in creating pathological strengths in
modern Indian politics and society. He further considers that it is premature to believe that with the rise
of modernity, supported by literacy, employment opportunities, communal tension would disappear. People
throughout human history, appear in one form or the other to glorify communalism. Therefore education,
rationality cannot eliminate communalism from the society. Illiterate Chinese made Mao Tse Tung their
leader, semi-literate Russians made Lenin their leader and highly literate Germans made Hitler their leader.
All these leaders were instrumental in glorifying communalism in one form or other.

Khushwant Singh points out that communalism has got nothing to do with ideology, culture
and religion. In India the first phase of communalism is politics, the second phase is economics and the
third phase is differential psychosis. He says that, in all communal tensions it is the religious minorities
who are pushed to the corner. Their poverty is destroyed, their identities questioned in their own
homeland, they stand alienated and are forced to go into their shells.

In case of India repeated of communal tension gives rise to concentration of minority in

specific localities in search of mutual self help or security at the time of necessity and crisis. Modern
theory of Amartya Sen, Upendra Bakshi, Andre Beteille, Rajeev Bhargav conceptualise communal tension
India is having historic roots. The great partition of India and prior to it communal state policy of British
(divide and rule) led to great communal division in the country. To put an end to communal tension
independent state of India introduced inclusive state policy like equal access to employment, education,
citizenship, court of law etc.

It was believed that these public policies will be facilitating people belonging to different
religion to attend same schools, join common political parties, get into occupation based upon merit, follow
same lifestyles and ideology, so that expandable modernity will be limiting the possibility of communal
conflict in secular Indian society.

These arguments does not carry much weight if one goes by the fact. The communal conflict
provides scope for self-assertion of the majority and marginalisation of the minorities. In many situations
either state supports to communal tensions or when there is communal tension driven by compulsions of
vote bank politics, state never makes an attempt to control tension. Therefore in the highly literate state
,incidents of communal tension is high and so one can find out that with the rise of modernity the
communal tension is not minimised.

TN Madan considers that we think communal, speak communal, eat communal, marry
communal and locate ourselves with others through the glorification of communal identities, therefore
secularism in India is absolutely impossible and it is bound to appear in one form or other.

Sudhir Kakkar goes a step ahead to indicate that communalism is a state of mind that gets
articulated as a reaction to expandable modernity. Modernity guarantee uniformity but people love
diversity. Thus modern School education systems, occupational structure when forced people to go for
uniformity, people went in search for diversity and thiese communication differences are glorified in modern
public places. He indicates most of the communal tensions takes place in urban India, thus more we go for
modernity more is accelerated the communal tensions.

It has been suggested by various sociologist's that communal tension should be studied in
terms of social compatibility between two different communities for example in case of Kerala both Hindus
and Muslims have equal access to education and employment and so they don't go for residential
separation, visit each other during ceremonies and festivals and generously contribute for public service
activities and so social compatibility between the communities is very high. Hence when communal tension
takes place in other parts of the country Kerala never suffers from this virus. To its contrast in case of a
Aligarh – Hindus and Muslims live in two different localities, engage in different kinds of occupation, follow
distinctive lifestyle, interpersonal communication is absolutely insignificant, and so even little provocation
from one community triggers off communal tension. Similar problem is found in Dharavi (a slum in
Mumbai) where there is lack of social compatibility. Differential access to development benefits provide
space for either self-assertion or social seclusion and that ultimately triggers communal tension.

The agencies of social change have questioned, altered and modified traditional location of
different communities and their access over different privileges and opportunities. Sometimes policies like
Uniform Civil Code is read beyond secular lines. Thus communal tensions should be studied not just from
political, economic standpoint but also from development disparity that triggers communal tension in one
form or other.
Illiteracy and Disparities in Education

In traditional India two types of education system existed i.e. Sanskritic education, Madarsa
education. When British came to India, they introduced non-vocational education so as to produce only
administrative class to facilitate British rule. During this time, missionaries got momentum as British
children too were to be imparted education. But education was not able to provide mobility to the people
because middle-class emerged out of the result of British education which glorified class education. Since
middle-class was a product of British education they were suffering from internal dialectics, wherein one
group supported colonialism thinking that it could free Indian minds from religious dogmas and superstition
and turning it towards rationality and modernity, whereas the other groups were opposed to the British
rule.

When India got independence emphasis was made on systematic transformation of education
system. Kothari commission (1968) was set up to accelerate mass education. It was suggested that every
village through community effort should build a mud building and from within community teachers would be
appointed who were to shoulder the responsibility to bring children to school. After five years they can ask
for grant-in-aid to help construction of pakka school building and upon completion of nine-year the state
would provide full grant. This resulted into the emergence of a large number of schools but without
adequate number of teachers to shoulder the responsibility of imparting education to students.

With the passage of time, in 1990s we went for the renewal of education system. Earlier it
was aimed at reducing the gap between different groups and sections, now it emphasised on universalisation
of primary education, vocationalisation of secondary education and delinking of job from certificate.

More we are going for quantitative expansion of education system more it is leading to
gender gap in education. In the year 2001 enrolment in primary schools in case of males was 64% whereas
in case of female it was 49.8%. In high school the enrolment of men and women is 16.9% and 10.7%
respectively. The education gap is also having ethnic, caste genesis. Literacy rate among SC man is 49.9%
and SC women is 23.8%. Female literacy in case of scheduled tribes is 18% and that of its counterpart is
40.7%.

Thus the above-mentioned gap sufficiently indicated that education as a catalyst for
modernisation and social change is yet to become complete. Disparity of access to education on the basis
of gender has been discussed by various sociologists prominent among whom is Veena Mazumdar who
consider that entry of a girl to the world of work at a tender age, the compulsion of dowry, patriarchal
character of society which emphasises on sexual purity, lack of school for girls, non-availability of women
teachers are responsible for the gender gap in education.
 In case of scheduled tribes the curriculum is not revised keeping tribal worldview, tribal
conception of education in mind which leads to linguistic deprivation. Non-availability of text written in
tribal language and huge gap between patterns of tribal thinking and the discourses in the school lead to
massive dropout of tribal children.

Sachar Committee report indicates that huge gap between Hindus and Muslims can be
attributed to the fact that when Hindus abandoned their traditional Sanskritik schools, most of the
Madarsas were funded by the state to carry out literacy campaign. Due to forced curriculum of Madarsa
which gave more importance to religious education thereby producing youths unfit for modern employment,
which subsequently let to backwardness of Muslims.Literacy gap between Muslim men and women precede
over literacy gap between any other religious communities because of orthodox Islamic worldview which
prohibited co-education.

In conclusion it can be said that disparity in education is a manifestation of differential

access of the people to the process of development. With the rise of capitalism different kinds of schools
have made appearance where public schools are meant for rich people and the municipal schools are
addressing to the needs of working class, therefore education instead of bringing equality is highlighting
inequality on the basis of traditional caste and class. When a person achieves little mobility in trade and
commerce, the first thing he does is to find a good public school for his child, thus like commodity public
schools are flourishing in urban centres highlighting hierarchical credentials.

Development disparity is not manifested in terms of poverty only, rather attendances in

school, kind of school, the kind of employment one enters into, influence of social background on education
largely indicate that education has not been successful to transform the hierarchical Indian society into
competitive and egalitarian one. Andre Beteille tells that in the sphere of education there is present social
reproduction and cultural reproduction rather than education promoting equality in Indian society.
Poverty, Deprivation and Inequalities

Economists calculate poverty on the basis of two criteria i.e. income and calorie. Sociologists
consider that neither of the two definition of poverty are foolproof or inclusive. Poverty should be
understood in terms of access to education, quality of life, freedom and different sources of entertainment
and political participation.

Amartya Sen indicate poverty is a life experience that cannot just be explained in mechanical
economic terms. Andre Beteille writes poverty is more contagious than pollution therefore poverty breeds
poverty. If the head of the family is poor he cannot buy nutritious food, guarantee education for children,
provide health care therefore his children will also take up lowly rewarding occupation just like their father.

Identical articulation is also made by SC Dubay who indicate that in case of India most of
the poor are born as poor, few of the poors stay as non-poors and none of the rich ever become poor.
Therefore poverty and prosperity are self perpetuating in character. Dada Bhai Naoroji was the first
nationalist who explained poverty in terms of colonial trade. He indicated that Britishers develop trade
policy that emphasise more on import and less on export. Over a period of time India sustained only on
imports which resulted into the collapse of indigenous industries thereby reducing a large number of
population as landless agricultural labourers living at the mercy of others. This he termed as “drain of
wealth”.

AR Desai established linkage between poverty and ecology. He considers that none of poverty
alleviation measures introduced by the state and government in India has really taken care of poverty.
Rural poors are shifting from rural environment to urban environment and some of the urban poors after
working in urban centre for a long period of time, spoiling their health, go back to village joining the class
of rural poors. Therefore poverty is transmitted and transformed than being cured in case of India.

Recently planning commission of India’s estimated that a daily expenditure of Rs. 20 on

essential requirements for those living in urban areas and Rs.15 for those in the rural India was enough to
keep them out of poverty. This poverty line of Rs. 20 per day for people living in the cities is worked
out from the Planning Commission's opinion that anybody with Rs. 578 per month is not to be officially
considered as poor. As per its report, this amount includes a monthly expenditure of Rs. 31 on rent and
conveyance, Rs.18 on education, Rs. 25 on medicines and Rs. 36.50 on vegetables.

The above-mentioned definition of poverty line puts doubt over the seriousness of planning
commission to address the problem of chronic poverty. It has been staunchly criticised by the civil society
as a fraud on the people of India. The Commission put the poverty ratio at 33 per cent of our population
while the National Advisory Council suggested 46 per cent. Both estimations, however, are “woefully
short” in view of the late Arjun Sengupta's estimation that 77 percent of India's population was currently
surviving on less than Rs. 20 a day.

Poverty is not just an economic handicap. It is unfortunate that policymakers of the country
explained poverty in quantitative terms without emphasising on humanistic factors like happiness, pleasure,
freedom and independence. Poverty can be effectively addressed not only through government initiative but
through availability of fortunate people in terms of land allocation, education, employment opportunities
and reduction of gender inequality. Therefore mechanistic approach to poverty is responsible for its
perpetuation in one form or other in case of India.

Yogendra Singh indicate that poverty sustains itself in India because of lack of participation
of civil society in anti-poverty initiative. In case of chronic poverty most of the people suffering belong to
the class of tribes, schedule caste, elderly population, physically handicapped, victims of distress migration
and single-parent family. Therefore chronic poverty is perpetuated and not arrested by policy measures of
government.

Anand Kumar in his book "politics of poverty" indicate that most of the poverty elevation
measures has developed, amended and reformulated not to eliminate poverty but manifest the visibility of
government to people. He further considers that antipoverty programs are becoming a hotbed of politics in
rural India, dividing people on the basis of caste, political affiliation, access to administrative agencies,
therefore politics of poverty ensures that poverty stays in India to make India a democracy.

Despite reduction of various poverty alleviation programme estimates indicates that during
the year 1957 an estimated 221 million people were poor and by the end of 2007 the number increased
to 270 million. Therefore volume of poverty increased with India's acceleration to modernisation.

Concentration of prosperity in upper strata and mass poverty in lower strata and the poor
people’s expectation from governmental intervention are evolving into the paradox of development
programme, intending to go for social transformation.
 G.H.Mead

During his more-than-40-year career, Mead thought deeply, wrote almost constantly, and published numerous articles and book reviews in philosophy
and psychology. However, he never published a book. After his death, several of his students edited four volumes from stenographic records of his
social psychology course at the University of Chicago, from Mead’s lecture notes, and from Mead’s numerous unpublished papers. The four books
are The Philosophy of the Present (1932), edited by Arthur E. Murphy; Mind, Self, and Society (1934), edited by Charles W. Morris; Movements of
Thought in the Nineteenth Century (1936), edited by Merritt H. Moore; and The Philosophy of the Act (1938), Mead’s Carus Lectures of 1930, edited by
Charles W. Morris.

Notable among Mead’s published papers are the following: “Suggestions Towards a Theory of the Philosophical Disciplines” (1900); “Social
Consciousness and the Consciousness of Meaning” (1910); “What Social Objects Must Psychology Presuppose” (1910); “The Mechanism of Social
Consciousness” (1912); “The Social Self” (1913); “Scientific Method and the Individual Thinker” (1917); “A Behavioristic Account of the Significant
Symbol” (1922); “The Genesis of Self and Social Control” (1925); “The Objective Reality of Perspectives” (1926);”The Nature of the Past” (1929); and
“The Philosophies of Royce, James, and Dewey in Their American Setting” (1929). Twenty-five of Mead’s most notable published articles have been
collected in Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead, edited by Andrew J. Reck (Bobbs-Merrill, The Liberal Arts Press, 1964).

Theory of Mind,Self and Society

In Mind, Self and Society (1934), Mead describes how the individual mind and self arises out of the social process. Instead of approaching human
experience in terms of individual psychology, Mead analyzes experience from the “standpoint of communication as essential to the social order.”
Individual psychology, for Mead, is intelligible only in terms of social processes. The “development of the individual’s self, and of his self- consciousness
within the field of his experience” is preeminently social. For Mead, the social process is prior to the structures and processes of individual experience.

Mind, according to Mead, arises within the social process of communication and cannot be understood apart from that process. The communicational
process involves two phases: (1) the “conversation of gestures” and (2) language, or the “conversation of significant gestures.” Both phases presuppose
a social context within which two or more individuals are in interaction with one another.

Mead introduces the idea of the “conversation of gestures” with his famous example of the dog-fight:

Dogs approaching each other in hostile attitude carry on such a language of gestures. They walk around each other, growling and snapping, and waiting
for the opportunity to attack . . . . (Mind, Self and Society 14) The act of each dog becomes the stimulus to the other dog for his response. There is then
a relationship between these two; and as the act is responded to by the other dog, it, in turn, undergoes change. The very fact that the dog is ready to
attack another becomes a stimulus to the other dog to change his own position or his own attitude. He has no sooner done this than the change of
attitude in the second dog in turn causes the first dog to change his attitude. We have here a conversation of gestures. They are not, however, gestures
in the sense that they are significant. We do not assume that the dog says to himself, “If the animal comes from this direction he is going to spring at my
throat and I will turn in such a way.” What does take place is an actual change in his own position due to the direction of the approach of the other dog.
(Mind, Self and Society 42-43, emphasis added).

In the conversation of gestures, communication takes place without an awareness on the part of the individual of the response that her gesture elicits in
others; and since the individual is unaware of the reactions of others to her gestures, she is unable to respond to her own gestures from the standpoint
of others. The individual participant in the conversation of gestures is communicating, but she does notknow that she is communicating. The
conversation of gestures, that is, is unconscious communication.

It is, however, out of the conversation of gestures that language, or conscious communication, emerges. Mead’s theory of communication is
evolutionary: communication develops from more or less primitive toward more or less advanced forms of social interaction. In the human world,
language supersedes (but does not abolish) the conversation of gestures and marks the transition from non-significant to significant interaction.

Language, in Mead’s view, is communication through significant symbols. A significant symbol is a gesture (usually a vocal gesture) that calls out in the
individual making the gesture the same (that is, functionally identical) response that is called out in others to whom the gesture is directed (Mind, Self
and Society 47).

Significant communication may also be defined as the comprehension by the individual of the meaning of her gestures. Mead describes the
communicational process as a social act since it necessarily requires at least two individuals in interaction with one another. It is within this act that
meaning arises. The act of communication has a triadic structure consisting of the following components: (1) an initiating gesture on the part of an
individual; (2) a response to that gesture by a second individual; and (3) the result of the action initiated by the first gesture (Mind, Self and Society 76,
81). There is no meaning independent of the interactive participation of two or more individuals in the act of communication.

Of course, the individual can anticipate the responses of others and can therefore consciously and intentionally make gestures that will bring out
appropriate responses in others. This form of communication is quite different from that which takes place in the conversation of gestures, for in the latter
there is no possibility of the conscious structuring and control of the communicational act.

Consciousness of meaning is that which permits the individual to respond to her own gestures as the other responds. A gesture, then, is an action that
implies a reaction. The reaction is the meaning of the gesture and points toward the result (the “intentionality”) of the action initiated by the gesture.
Gestures “become significant symbols when they implicitly arouse in an individual making them the same responses which they explicitly arouse, or are
supposed [intended] to arouse, in other individuals, the individuals to whom they are addressed” (Mind, Self and Society 47). For example, “You ask
somebody to bring a visitor a chair. You arouse the tendency to get the chair in the other, but if he is slow to act, you get the chair yourself. The
response to the gesture is the doing of a certain thing, and you arouse that same tendency in yourself” (Mind, Self and Society 67). At this stage, the
conversation of gestures is transformed into a conversation of significant symbols.

There is a certain ambiguity in Mead’s use of the terms “meaning” and “significance.” The question is, can a gesture be meaningful without being
significant? But, if the meaning of a gesture is the response to that gesture, then there is meaning in the (non-significant) conversation of gestures — the
second dog, after all, responds to the gestures of the first dog in the dog- fight and vice-versa.
However, it is the conversation of significant symbols that is the foundation of Mead’s theory of mind. “Only in terms of gestures as significant symbols is
the existence of mind or intelligence possible; for only in terms of gestures which are significant symbols can thinking — which is simply an internalized
or implicit conversation of the individual with himself by means of such gestures — take place” (Mind, Self and Society 47). Mind, then, is a form of
participation in an interpersonal (that is, social) process; it is the result of taking the attitudes of others toward one’s own gestures (or conduct in
general). Mind, in brief, is the use of significant symbols.

The essence of Mead’s so-called “social behaviorism” is his view that mind is an emergent out of the interaction of organic individuals in a social matrix.
Mind is not a substance located in some transcendent realm, nor is it merely a series of events that takes place within the human physiological structure.
Mead therefore rejects the traditional view of the mind as a substance separate from the body as well as the behavioristic attempt to account for mind
solely in terms of physiology or neurology. Mead agrees with the behaviorists that we can explain mind behaviorally if we deny its existence as a
substantial entity and view it instead as a natural function of human organisms. But it is neither possible nor desirable to deny the existence of mind
altogether. The physiological organism is a necessary but not sufficient condition of mental behavior (Mind, Self and Society 139). Without the peculiar
character of the human central nervous system, internalization by the individual of the process of significant communication would not be possible; but
without the social process of conversational behavior, there would be no significant symbols for the individual to internalize.

The emergence of mind is contingent upon interaction between the human organism and its social environment; it is through participation in the social
act of communication that the individual realizes her (physiological and neurological) potential for significantly symbolic behavior (that is, thought). Mind,
in Mead’s terms, is the individualized focus of the communicational process — it is linguistic behavior on the part of the individual. There is, then, no
“mind or thought without language;” and language (the content of mind) “is only a development and product of social interaction” (Mind, Self and
Society 191- 192). Thus, mind is not reducible to the neurophysiology of the organic individual, but is an emergent in “the dynamic, ongoing social
process” that constitutes human experience (Mind, Self and Society 7).

b. Action

For Mead, mind arises out of the social act of communication. Mead’s concept of the social act is relevant, not only to his theory of mind, but to all facets
of his social philosophy. His theory of “mind, self, and society” is, in effect, a philosophy of the act from the standpoint of a social process involving the
interaction of many individuals, just as his theory of knowledge and value is a philosophy of the act from the standpoint of the experiencing individual in
interaction with an environment.

There are two models of the act in Mead’s general philosophy: (1) the model of the act-as-such, i.e., organic activity in general (which is elaborated
in The Philosophy of the Act), and (2) the model of the social act, i.e., social activity, which is a special case of organic activity and which is of particular
(although not exclusive) relevance in the interpretation of human experience. The relation between the “social process of behavior” and the “social
environment” is “analogous” to the relation between the “individual organism” and the “physical-biological environment” (Mind, Self and Society 130).

The Act-As-Such

In his analysis of the act-as-such (that is, organic activity), Mead speaks of the act as determining “the relation between the individual and the
environment” (The Philosophy of the Act 364). Reality, according to Mead, is a field of situations. “These situations are fundamentally characterized by
the relation of an organic individual to his environment or world. The world, things, and the individual are what they are because of this relation [between
the individual and his world]” (The Philosophy of the Act 215). It is by way of the act that the relation between the individual and his world is defined and
developed.

Mead describes the act as developing in four stages: (1) the stage of impulse, upon which the organic individual responds to “problematic situations” in
his experience (e.g., the intrusion of an enemy into the individual’s field of existence); (2) the stage of perception, upon which the individual defines and
analyzes his problem (e.g., the direction of the enemy’s attack is sensed, and a path leading in the opposite direction is selected as an avenue of
escape); (3) the stage of manipulation, upon which action is taken with reference to the individual’s perceptual appraisal of the problematic situation
(e.g., the individual runs off along the path and away from his enemy); and (4) the stage of consummation, upon which the encountered difficulty is
resolved and the continuity of organic existence re- established (e.g., the individual escapes his enemy and returns to his ordinary affairs) (The
Philosophy of the Act 3-25). ]

What is of interest in this description is that the individual is not merely a passive recipient of external, environmental influences, but is capable of taking
action with reference to such influences; he reconstructs his relation to his environment through selective perception and through the use or
manipulation of the objects selected in perception (e.g., the path of escape mentioned above). The objects in the environment are, so to speak, created
through the activity of the organic individual: the path along which the individual escapes was not “there” (in his thoughts or perceptions) until the
individual needed a path of escape. Reality is not simply “out there,” independent of the organic individual, but is the outcome of the dynamic
interrelation of organism and environment. Perception, according to Mead, is a relation between organism and object. Perception is not, then, something
that occurs in the organism, but is an objective relation between the organism and its environment; and the perceptual object is not an entity out there,
independent of the organism, but is one pole of the interactive perceptual process (The Philosophy of the Act 81).

Objects of perception arise within the individual’s attempt to solve problems that have emerged in his experience, problems that are, in an important
sense, determined by the individual himself. The character of the individual’s environment is predetermined by the individual’s sensory capacities. The
environment, then, is what it is in relation to a sensuous and selective organic individual; and things, or objects, “are what they are in the relationship
between the individual and his environment, and this relationship is that of conduct [i.e., action]” (The Philosophy of the Act 218).

The Social Act

While the social act is analogous to the act-as-such, the above-described model of “individual biological activity” (Mind, Self and Society 130) will not
suffice as an analysis of social experience. The “social organism” is not an organic individual, but “a social group of individual organisms” (Mind, Self and
Society 130). The human individual, then, is a member of a social organism, and his acts must be viewed in the context of social acts that involve other
individuals. Society is not a collection of preexisting atomic individuals (as suggested, for example, by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau), but rather a
processual whole within which individuals define themselves through participation in social acts. The acts of the individual are, according to Mead,
aspects of acts that are trans- individual. “For social psychology, the whole (society) is prior to the part (the individual), not the part to the whole; and the
part is explained in terms of the whole, not the whole in terms of the part or parts” (Mind, Self and Society 7). Thus, the social act is a “dynamic whole,” a
“complex organic process,” within which the individual is situated, and it is within this situation that individual acts are possible and have meaning.

Mead defines the social act in relation to the social object. The social act is a collective act involving the participation of two or more individuals; and the
social object is a collective object having a common meaning for each participant in the act. There are many kinds of social acts, some very simple,
some very complex. These range from the (relatively) simple interaction of two individuals (e.g., in dancing, in love-making, or in a game of handball), to
rather more complex acts involving more than two individuals (e.g., a play, a religious ritual, a hunting expedition), to still more complex acts carried on in
the form of social organizations and institutions (e.g., law- enforcement, education, economic exchange). The life of a society consists in the aggregate
of such social acts.

It is by way of the social act that persons in society create their reality. The objects of the social world (common objects such as clothes, furniture, tools,
as well as scientific objects such as atoms and electrons) are what they are as a result of being defined and utilized within the matrix of specific social
acts. Thus, an animal skin becomes a coat in the experience of people (e.g., barbarians or pretenders to aristocracy) engaged in the social act of
covering and/or adorning their bodies; and the electron is introduced (as a hypothetical object) in the scientific community’s project of investigating the
ultimate nature of physical reality.

Communication through significant symbols is that which renders the intelligent organization of social acts possible. Significant communication, as stated
earlier, involves the comprehension of meaning, i.e., the taking of the attitude of others toward one’s own gestures. Significant communication among
individuals creates a world of common (symbolic) meanings within which further and deliberate social acts are possible. The specifically human social
act, in other words, is rooted in the act of significant communication and is, in fact, ordered by the conversation of significant symbols.

In addition to its role in the organization of the social act, significant communication is also fundamentally involved in the creation of social objects. For it
is by way of significant symbols that humans indicate to one another the object relevant to their collective acts. For example, suppose that a group of
people has decided on a trip to the zoo. One of the group offers to drive the others in his car; and the others respond by following the driver to his
vehicle. The car has thus become an object for all members of the group, and they all make use of it to get to the zoo. Prior to this particular project of
going to the zoo, the car did not have the specific significance that it takes on in becoming instrumental in the zoo-trip. The car was, no doubt, an object
in some other social act prior to its incorporation into the zoo-trip; but prior to that incorporation, it was not specifically and explicitly a means of
transportation to the zoo. Whatever it was, however, would be determined by its role in some social act (e.g., the owner’s project of getting to work each
day, etc.). It is perhaps needless to point out that the decision to go to the zoo, as well as the decision to use the car in question as a means of
transportation, was made through a conversation involving significant symbols. The significant symbol functions here to indicate “some object or other
within the field of social behavior, an object of common interest to all the individuals involved in the given social act thus directed toward or upon that
object” (Mind, Self and Society 46). The reality that humans experience is, for Mead, very largely socially constructed in a process mediated and
facilitated by the use of significant symbols.

c. Self and Other

The Self as Social Emergent

The self, like the mind, is a social emergent. This social conception of the self, Mead argues, entails that individual selves are the products of social
interaction and not the (logical or biological) preconditions of that interaction. Mead contrasts his social theory of the self with individualistic theories of
the self (that is, theories that presuppose the priority of selves to social process). “The self is something which has a development; it is not initially there,
at birth, but arises in the process of social experience and activity, that is, develops in the given individual as a result of his relations to that process as a
whole and to other individuals within that process” (Mind, Self and Society 135). Mead’s model of society is an organic model in which individuals are
related to the social process as bodily parts are related to bodies.

The self is a reflective process — i.e., “it is an object to itself.” For Mead, it is the reflexivity of the self that “distinguishes it from other objects and from
the body.” For the body and other objects are not objects to themselves as the self is.

It is perfectly true that the eye can see the foot, but it does not see the body as a whole. We cannot see our backs; we can feel certain portions of them,
if we are agile, but we cannot get an experience of our whole body. There are, of course, experiences which are somewhat vague and difficult of
location, but the bodily experiences are for us organized about a self. The foot and hand belong to the self. We can see our feet, especially if we look at
them from the wrong end of an opera glass, as strange things which we have difficulty in recognizing as our own. The parts of the body are quite
distinguishable from the self. We can lose parts of the body without any serious invasion of the self. The mere ability to experience different parts of the
body is not different from the experience of a table. The table presents a different feel from what the hand does when one hand feels another, but it is an
experience of something with which we come definitely into contact. The body does not experience itself as a whole, in the sense in which the self in
some way enters into the experience of the self (Mind, Self and Society 136).

It is, moreover, this reflexivity of the self that distinguishes human from animal consciousness (Mind, Self and Society, fn., 137). Mead points out two
uses of the term “consciousness”: (1) “consciousness” may denote “a certain feeling consciousness” which is the outcome of an organism’s sensitivity to
its environment (in this sense, animals, in so far as they act with reference to events in their environments, are conscious); and (2) “consciousness” may
refer to a form of awareness “which always has, implicitly at least, the reference to an ‘I’ in it” (that is, the term “consciousness” may mean self-
consciousness) (Mind, Self and Society 165). It is the second use of the term “consciousness” that is appropriate to the discussion of human
consciousness. While there is a form of pre-reflective consciousness that refers to the “bare thereness of the world,” it is reflective (or self-)
consciousness that characterizes human awareness. The pre-reflective world is a world in which the self is absent (Mind, Self and Society 135-136).

Self-consciousness, then, involves the objectification of the self. In the mode of self- consciousness, the “individual enters as such into his own
experience . . . as an object” (Mind, Self and Society 225). How is this objectification of the self possible? The individual, according to Mead, “can enter
as an object [to himself] only on the basis of social relations and interactions, only by means of his experiential transactions with other individuals in an
organized social environment” (Mind, Self and Society 225). Self-consciousness is the result of a process in which the individual takes the attitudes of
others toward herself, in which she attempts to view herself from the standpoint of others. The self-as-object arises out of the individual’s experience of
other selves outside of herself. The objectified self is an emergent within the social structures and processes of human intersubjectivity.

Symbolic Interaction and the Emergence of the Self

Mead’s account of the social emergence of the self is developed further through an elucidation of three forms of inter-subjective activity: language, play,
and the game. These forms of “symbolic interaction” (that is, social interactions that take place via shared symbols such as words, definitions, roles,
gestures, rituals, etc.) are the major paradigms in Mead’s theory of socialization and are the basic social processes that render the reflexive
objectification of the self possible.

Language, as we have seen, is communication via “significant symbols,” and it is through significant communication that the individual is able to take the
attitudes of others toward herself. Language is not only a “necessary mechanism” of mind, but also the primary social foundation of the self:

I know of no other form of behavior than the linguistic in which the individual is an object to himself . . . (Mind, Self and Society 142). When a self does
appear it always involves an experience of another; there could not be an experience of a self simply by itself. The plant or the lower animal reacts to its
environment, but there is no experience of a self . . . . When the response of the other becomes an essential part in the experience or conduct of the
individual; when taking the attitude of the other becomes an essential part in his behavior — then the individual appears in his own experience as a self;
and until this happens he does not appear as a self (Mind, Self and Society 195).

Within the linguistic act, the individual takes the role of the other, i.e., responds to her own gestures in terms of the symbolized attitudes of others. This
“process of taking the role of the other” within the process of symbolic interaction is the primal form of self-objectification and is essential to self-
realization (Mind, Self and Society 160-161).

It ought to be clear, then, that the self-as-object of which Mead speaks is not an object in a mechanistic, billiard ball world of external relations, but rather
it is a basic structure of human experience that arises in response to other persons in an organic social-symbolic world of internal (and inter- subjective)
relations. This becomes even clearer in Mead’s interpretation of playing and gaming. In playing and gaming, as in linguistic activity, the key to the
generation of self-consciousness is the process of role-playing.” In play, the child takes the role of another and acts as though she were the other (e.g.,
mother, doctor, nurse, Indian, and countless other symbolized roles). This form of role-playing involves a single role at a time. Thus, the other which
comes into the child’s experience in play is a “specific other” (The Philosophy of the Present 169).

The game involves a more complex form of role-playing than that involved in play. In the game, the individual is required to internalize, not merely the
character of a single and specific other, but the roles of all others who are involved with him in the game. He must, moreover, comprehend the rules of
the game which condition the various roles (Mind, Self and Society 151). This configuration of roles-organized-according-to- rules brings the attitudes of
all participants together to form a symbolized unity: this unity is the “generalized other” (Mind, Self and Society 154). The generalized other is “an
organized and generalized attitude” (Mind, Self and Society 195) with reference to which the individual defines her own conduct. When the individual can
view herself from the standpoint of the generalized other, “self- consciousness in the full sense of the term” is attained.

The game, then, is the stage of the social process at which the individual attains selfhood. One of Mead’s most outstanding contributions to the
development of critical social theory is his analysis of games. Mead elucidates the full social and psychological significance of game-playing and the
extent to which the game functions as an instrument of social control. The following passage contains a remarkable piece of analysis:

What goes on in the game goes on in the life of the child all the time. He is continually taking the attitudes of those about him, especially the roles of
those who in some sense control him and on whom he depends. He gets the function of the process in an abstract way at first. It goes over from the play
into the game in a real sense. He has to play the game. The morale of the game takes hold of the child more than the larger morale of the whole
community. The child passes into the game and the game expresses a social situation in which he can completely enter; its morale may have a greater
hold on him than that of the family to which he belongs or the community in which he lives. There are all sorts of social organizations, some of which are
fairly lasting, some temporary, into which the child is entering, and he is playing a sort of social game in them. It is a period in which he likes “to belong,”
and he gets into organizations which come into existence and pass out of existence. He becomes a something which can function in the organized
whole, and thus tends to determine himself in his relationship with the group to which he belongs. That process is one which is a striking stage in the
development of the child’s morale. It constitutes him a self-conscious member of the community to which he belongs (Mind, Self and Society 160,
emphasis added).

The “Me” and the “I”

Although the self is a product of socio-symbolic interaction, it is not merely a passive reflection of the generalized other. The individual’s response to the
social world is active; she decides what she will do in the light of the attitudes of others; but her conduct is not mechanically determined by such
attitudinal structures. There are, it would appear, two phases (or poles) of the self: (1) that phase which reflects the attitude of the generalized other and
(2) that phase which responds to the attitude of the generalized other. Here, Mead distinguishes between the “me” and the “I.” The “me” is the social self,
and the “I” is a response to the “me” (Mind, Self and Society 178). “The ‘I’ is the response of the organism to the attitudes of the others; the ‘me’ is the
organized set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes” (Mind, Self and Society 175). Mead defines the “me” as “a conventional, habitual
individual,” and the “I” as the “novel reply” of the individual to the generalized other (Mind, Self and Society 197). There is a dialectical relationship
between society and the individual; and this dialectic is enacted on the intra-psychic level in terms of the polarity of the “me” and the “I.” The “me” is the
internalization of roles which derive from such symbolic processes as linguistic interaction, playing, and gaming; whereas the “I” is a “creative response”
to the symbolized structures of the “me” (that is, to the generalized other).

Although the “I” is not an object of immediate experience, it is, in a sense, knowable (that is, objectifiable). The “I” is apprehended in memory; but in the
memory image, the “I” is no longer a pure subject, but “a subject that is now an object of observation” (Selected Writings 142). We can understand the
structural and functional significance of the “I,” but we cannot observe it directly — it appears only ex post facto. We remember the responses of the “I”
to the “me;” and this is as close as we can get to a concrete knowledge of the “I.” The objectification of the “I” is possible only through an awareness of
the past; but the objectified “I” is never the subject of present experience. “If you ask, then, where directly in your own experience the ‘I’ comes in, the
answer is that it comes in as a historical figure” (Mind, Self and Society 174).

The “I” appears as a symbolized object in our consciousness of our past actions, but then it has become part of the “me.” The “me” is, in a sense, that
phase of the self that represents the past (that is, the already-established generalized other). The “I,” which is a response to the “me,” represents action
in a present (that is, “that which is actually going on, taking place”) and implies the restructuring of the “me” in a future. After the “I” has acted, “we can
catch it in our memory and place it in terms of that which we have done,” but it is now (in the newly emerged present) an aspect of the restructured “me”
(Mind, Self and Society 204, 203).

Because of the temporal-historical dimension of the self, the character of the “I” is determinable onlyafter it has occurred; the “I” is not, therefore, subject
to predetermination. Particular acts of the “I” become aspects of the “me” in the sense that they are objectified through memory; but the “I” as such is not
contained in the “me.”

The human individual exists in a social situation and responds to that situation. The situation has a particular character, but this character does not
completely determine the response of the individual; there seem to be alternative courses of action. The individual must select a course of action (and
even a decision to do “nothing” is a response to the situation) and act accordingly, but the course of action she selects is not dictated by the situation. It
is this indeterminacy of response that “gives the sense of freedom, of initiative” (Mind, Self and Society 177). The action of the “I” is revealed only in the
action itself; specific prediction of the action of the “I” is not possible. The individual is determined to respond, but the specific character of her response
is not fully determined. The individual’s responses are conditioned, but not determined by the situation in which she acts (Mind, Self and Society 210-
211). Human freedom is conditioned freedom.

Thus, the “I” and the “me” exist in dynamic relation to one another. The human personality (or self) arises in a social situation. This situation structures
the “me” by means of inter-subjective symbolic processes (language, gestures, play, games, etc.), and the active organism, as it continues to develop,
must respond to its situation and to its “me.” This response of the active organism is the “I.”
 The individual takes the attitude of the “me” or the attitude of the “I” according to situations in which she finds herself. For Mead, “both aspects of the ‘I’
and the ‘me’ are essential to the self in its full expression” (Mind, Self and Society 199). Both community and individual autonomy are necessary to
identity. The “I” is process breaking through structure. The “me” is a necessary symbolic structure which renders the action of the “I” possible, and
“without this structure of things, the life of the self would become impossible” (Mind, Self and Society 214).

The Dialectic of Self and Other

The self arises when the individual takes the attitude of the generalized other toward herself. This “internalization” of the generalized other occurs
through the individual’s participation in the conversation of significant symbols (that is, language) and in other socialization processes (e.g., play and
games). The self, then, is of great value to organized society: the internalization of the conversation of significant symbols and of other interactional
symbolic structures allows for “the superior co-ordination” of “society as a whole,” and for the “increased efficiency of the individual as a member of the
group” (Mind, Self and Society 179). The generalized other (internalized in the “me”) is a major instrument of social control; it is the mechanism by which
the community gains control “over the conduct of its individual members” (Mind, Self and Society 155).”Social control,” in Mead’s words, “is the
expression of the ‘me’ over against the expression of the ‘I’” (Mind, Self and Society 210).

The genesis of the self in social process is thus a condition of social control. The self is a social emergent that supports the cohesion of the group;
individual will is harmonized, by means of a socially defined and symbolized “reality,” with social goals and values. “In so far as there are social acts,”
writes Mead, “there are social objects, and I take it that social control is bringing the act of the individual into relation with this social object” (The
Philosophy of the Act 191). Thus, there are two dimensions of Mead’s theory of internalization: (1) the internalization of the attitudes of others toward
oneself and toward one another (that is, internalization of the interpersonal process); and (2) the internalization of the attitudes of others “toward the
various phases or aspects of the common social activity or set of social undertakings in which, as members of an organized society or social group, they
are all engaged” (Mind, Self and Society154-155).

The self, then, has reference, not only to others, but to social projects and goals, and it is by means of the socialization process (that is, the
internalization of the generalized other through language, play, and the game) that the individual is brought to “assume the attitudes of those in the group
who are involved with him in his social activities” (The Philosophy of the Act 192). By learning to speak, gesture, and play in “appropriate” ways, the
individual is brought into line with the accepted symbolized roles and rules of the social process. The self is therefore one of the most subtle and
effective instruments of social control.

For Mead, however, social control has its limits. One of these limits is the phenomenon of the “I,” as described in the preceding section. Another limit to
social control is presented in Mead’s description of specific social relations. This description has important consequences regarding the way in which the
concept of the generalized other is to be applied in social analysis.

The self emerges out of “a special set of social relations with all the other individuals” involved in a given set of social projects (Mind, Self and
Society 156-157). The self is always a reflection of specific social relations that are themselves founded on the specific mode of activity of the group in
question. The concept of property, for example, presupposes a community with certain kinds of responses; the idea of property has specific social and
historical foundations and symbolizes the interests and values of specific social groups.

Mead delineates two types of social groups in civilized communities. There are, on the one hand, “concrete social classes or subgroups” in which
“individual members are directly related to one another.” On the other hand, there are “abstract social classes or subgroups” in which “individual
members are related to one another only more or less indirectly, and which only more or less indirectly function as social units, but which afford unlimited
possibilities for the widening and ramifying and enriching of the social relations among all the individual members of the given society as an organized
and unified whole” (Mind, Self and Society 157). Such abstract social groups provide the opportunity for a radical extension of the “definite social
relations” which constitute the individual’s sense of self and which structure her conduct.

Human society, then, contains a multiplicity of generalized others. The individual is capable of holding membership in different groups, both
simultaneously and serially, and may therefore relate herself to different generalized others at different times; or she may extend her conception of the
generalized other by identifying herself with a “larger” community than the one in which she has hitherto been involved (e.g., she may come to view
herself as a member of a nation rather than as a member of a tribe). The self is not confined within the limits of any one generalized other. It is true that
the self arises through the internalization of the generalized attitudes of others, but there is, it would appear, no absolute limit to the individual’s capacity
to encompass new others within the dynamic structure of the self. This makes strict and total social control difficult if not impossible.

Mead’s description of social relations also has interesting implications vis-a-vis the sociological problem of the relation between consensus and conflict
in society. It is clear that both consensus and conflict are significant dimensions of social process; and in Mead’s view, the problem is not to
decide either for a consensus model of society or for a conflict model, but to describe as directly as possible the function of both consensus and conflict
in human social life.

There are two models of consensus-conflict relation in Mead’s analysis of social relations. These may be schematized as follows:

1. Intra-Group Consensus — Extra-Group Conflict

2. Intra-Group Conflict — Extra-Group Consensus

In the first model, the members of a given group are united in opposition to another group which is characterized as the “common enemy” of all members
of the first group. Mead points out that the idea of a common enemy is central in much of human social organization and that it is frequently the major
reference-point of intra-group consensus. For example, a great many human organizations derive theirraison d’etre and their sense of solidarity from the
existence (or putative existence) of the “enemy” (communists, atheists, infidels, fascist pigs, religious “fanatics,” liberals, conservatives, or whatever).
The generalized other of such an organization is formed in opposition to the generalized other of the enemy. The individual is “with” the members of her
group and “against” members of the enemy group.

Mead’s second model, that of intra-group conflict and extra-group consensus, is employed in his description of the process in which the individual
reacts against her own group. The individual opposes her group by appealing to a “higher sort of community” that she holds to be superior to her own.
She may do this by appealing to the past (e.g., she may ground her criticism of the bureaucratic state in a conception of “Jeffersonian Democracy”), or
by appealing to the future (e.g., she may point to the ideal of “all mankind,” of the universal community, an ideal that has the future as its ever-receding
reference point). Thus, intra-group conflict is carried on in terms of an extra-group consensus, even if the consensus is merely assumed or posited. This
model presupposes Mead’s conception of the multiplicity of generalized others, i.e., the field within which conflicts are possible. It is also true that the
individual can criticize her group only in so far as she can symbolize to herself the generalized other of that group; otherwise she would have nothing to
criticize, nor would she have the motivation to do so. It is in this sense that social criticism presupposes social- symbolic process and a social self
capable of symbolic reflexive activity.
In addition to the above-described models of consensus-conflict relation, Mead also points out an explicitly temporal interaction between consensus and
conflict. Human conflicts often lead to resolutions that create new forms of consensus. Thus, when such conflicts occur, they can lead to whole
“reconstructions of the particular social situations” that are the contexts of the conflicts (e.g., a war between two nations may be followed by new political
alignments in which the two warring nations become allies). Such reconstructions of society are effected by the minds of individuals in conflict and
constitute enlargements of the social whole.

An interesting consequence of Mead’s analysis of social conflict is that the reconstruction of society will entail the reconstruction of the self. This aspect
of the social dynamic is particularly clear in terms of Mead’s concept of intra-group conflict and his description of the dialectic of the “me” and the “I.” As
pointed out earlier, the “I” is an emergent response to the generalized other; and the “me” is that phase of the self that represents the social situation
within which the individual must operate. Thus, the critical capacity of the self takes form in the “I” and has two dimensions: (1) explicit self- criticism
(aimed at the “me”) is implicit social criticism; and (2) explicit social criticism is implicit self- criticism. For example, the criticism of one’s own moral
principles is also the criticism of the morality of one’s social world, for personal morality is rooted in social morality. Conversely, the criticism of the
morality of one’s society raises questions concerning one’s own moral role in the social situation.

Since self and society are dialectical poles of a single process, change in one pole will result in change in the other pole. It would appear that social
reconstructions are effected by individuals (or groups of individuals) who find themselves in conflict with a given society; and once the reconstruction is
accomplished, the new social situation generates far-reaching changes in the personality structures of the individuals involved in that situation.” In short,”
writes Mead, “social reconstruction and self or personality reconstruction are the two sides of a single process — the process of human social evolution”
 Impact of colonial rule on Indian society

Social background of Indian nationalism

During early part of the 19th-century i.e. first phase of Nationalist movement the Nationalist
consciousness was awakened by reformist leaders like Rajaram Mohan Roy and Dayanand Saraswati. They
glorified the values of liberty, fraternity and equality. They wanted absolute reforms in traditional Orthodox
family of India by imbibing the values of British culture/value/ideology. Cultural awakening was the foundation
to nationalism.

During the second phase i.e. 1885 to 1908 Congress was founded. It led to the rise of liberals and
growth of Congress played an important role in the progress of nationalism. Some educated Indians considered
themselves the spokesman of the masses and asked Britishers for more liberal attitude towards Indians.

The third phase i.e. 1905 to 1918 people started asserting their right for independence to free
themselves from the clutches of British by adopting spiritualised nationalism. Inculcating the spirit of
nationalism were leaders like Lal Bal Pal, Bankim Chandra but the extremist lost faith in moderates and went
for violent revolution. Tranquillised and highly spiritual nationalism evolved during this period. By 1980
industries got its momentum and a number of Indian got exposure to Western world because of want supplies
during the world War. Many industries benefited from trade monopolies act and the world trade.

The fourth stage i.e. 1918 to 1934 is considered to be the period where extremist glorified cultural
past and also the role of Gandhi came into prominence. The support of bourgeois and middle-class gave
momentum to the national movement. Movements by the peasant class for example Champaran, Kheda etc
created ripple in Indian. All the above factors resulted into mass mobilisation wherein demand for independence
grew stronger by every passing day and it became impossible for the British to ignore this demand any
further.

By the fifth stage i.e. 1934 to 1937 the ideology of nationalism greatly spiritualised the masses and
literate or illiterate, rural or urban, men or women all segments of the society raised their voice in tandem
demanding independence once and for all. Nationalism reached every section of the society.

Though India India got its independence but Indians are still enslaved. There is still a distinction
between supra and sub citizens. External colonialism is replaced by internal colonialism. Partha Chatterjee
writes that people and nationalism has nothing to do with each other. For the people were used for different
bargain and for the interest by the elite class.

Theosophical Society developed the idea that there is not only the similarity between the language of
India (Sanskrit) and other languages but India is the mother of all cultures. Vivekananda wrote that Indian
culture is a culture which could find tranquillity and peace and could find the solutions to all the problems of
the world. Rajaram Mohan Roy alleged that Indian culture got injected by dogmas and believes and underwent
degradation and therefore it is time to welcome the British and modernise India.

Rightist belief that Sanskritik culture and Brahmi script unified the diverse population across territory.
Dayanand Saraswati known as Martin Luther king of India was highly influential in putting forward a rightist
approach which is still prevalent to this day. Nehru had faith in the lost cousin theory and he implicitly put
it in terms of India's progress by adopting a Western model of development with a socialist tinge.

Gandhiji used the concept of universalism to unite the diverse sections of India. He realised that the
uses of religion and caste is necessary as much as the modern ideas to make participation universal and equal.
Though as a matter of fact he believed that the confusion between caste and Varna has led to the former
becoming a reason of discontentment among various sections of the society. Gandhiji wanted a unified Indian
nationalism and not Hindu – Muslim nationalism. Time and again he tried its best to bring the diverse
religion, caste and communities on a single platform to create a united India based on love, respect and
brotherhood among people belonging to all sections of the society.

In the present scenario grassroot development is the need of the hour therefore decentralised
movements coming from below is mobilising people to satisfy their needs and promote common man's interest
and accommodation within the larger spectrum of Indian nationalism.
 Modernisation of Indian tradition

Introduction
Initially theological thought evolved propounded by Saint Augustine. Gradually scientific discoveries took
place leading to different branches of natural sciences which were non-emotive in character which started
questioning religion.

The 15th to 17th century period saw evolution of new discipline of literature – Hobbs, Locke,
Montesquieu. This led to the emergence of new social order based on rationality. European modernity is a kind
of ideology coming out of renaissance and scientific discoveries.

When we speak about European modernity to take into consideration empiricism, rationality and
objectivity. These values in character are empirical in nature which started questioning theological. Spirituality,
more or less nature of religion were questioned by secular values through religious reforms. Spirit of science
influenced the philosophers and researchers of the time. Secularism was the most important foundation to
European modernity. One of the important agendas of European modernity was separation of state from the
clutches of church.

Monarchs used to consider themselves descendants of God on earth who got legitimacy from the
church. Political order was ruler centric and therefore there was a need for self-assertion among the people
and this led to Europe go for political modernity.

Educational transformation was essential to economic, political and value modernity. Education got
liberated from Catholic domination which led to the emergence of public school, migration etc. But all these
changes would not have taken place without the transformation of man.

Values are abstract standards guiding our everyday behaviour. Value transformation in Europe means
values coming from different institutions like bureaucracy, political institution and concepts like equality
,fraternity. These values give a kind of ethos to the people of Europe and created a sense of pride that
nobody can touch them or reach them because they are superior and this sense of superiority made them rule
over the whole world.

European modernity is the result of human reason, which is objective, in character and rational. This
modernity is taking man away from dogmas and spiritualism. Whereas modernity in Indian context is revised
and question. Tradition is not evolving in years but is changing with the passage of time. Nehru glorified
modernity in India. The great urban – rural divide was the result of Nehruvian modernity and this led to
people becoming sceptical of this term. Indian modernity is ‘selective modernity’ whereas European modernity
is absolutel in nature. Nehruvian modernity is both appreciated in condemned at the same time.
 Appearance of Gandhiji was not a symbol of modernity. Gandhiji was suffering from inherent
contradiction which made him Father of the nation. He had love for Hinduism but at the same time believed
in equality for all. He on one hand appreciated Varna system but on the other hand he advocated Varna
system should not be based on the basis of birth. He had paradoxical thoughts. A philosopher within him
many a times took juxtaposition views on various beliefs. He realised the importance of women power.

Peter Berger says that modernity is a kind of cancer. Modernity throws man out of his country, his
heartland and make him settle in a distant country where one is treated like an alien. Modernity has given
rise to a confusion which is creating social hopelessness among the new generation.

Anthony Giddens believed that modernity has enormously gratified bourgeois capitalist interest.
Modernity is doing appearance, from front it looks beautiful but from the back it is equally deadly in nature.
Starting from Nehru to globalisation Indian society has reached to modernity leading to the study of
modernisation of Indian tradition.

Modernity entered into India through British endeavours and Bengal Renaissance:

Bengal – Intellectual capital,

Delhi – Political capital,

Bombay -economic capital.

In Bengal the first person to jump for absolute modernity was Rajaram Mohan Roy. He believed
modernity means superior culture and traditional means lower status. He is different from Dayanand Saraswati
who glorified Hindu culture.

What is tradition? Are tradition and modernity engaging in dialectical relationship? Can the impact of
modernity on all traditional society would be identical? Can tradition and modernity mutually share the
attribute of each other? Can tradition be variable with time and space and respond to modernity differently?
These are the most important questions that sociology intends to address. Therefore sociologist considers that
sociology and modernism are first cousin to each other.

Modernity is not Endogenous(derived internally) concept to India, it is a European concept that has
produced linear result in case of Europe starting with technology, extending to institution, ideology and values.
Important aspects of modernity was so inclusive and exhaustive in Europe that it was perceived that social
progress, development, growth and human happiness cannot be imagined without modernity.

Peter Worsley indicates that modernity and sociology an engaged in two distinctive forms of
association. Firstly sociology is a product of modernity and secondly sociology also questions modernity. Hence
both share a dynamic and dialectical relationship.
 Modernity in Europe can be understood from three different stages such as:

 celebration stage,
 questioning stage,
 rejection stage.

The early sociology starting from St Simon to Auguste comte, Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Weber
and of late Talcott Parson was engaged in celebrating modernity for different purposes. Immanuel Kant
considered that modernity is the spirit of human reason. He believed that mind is liberated from dogmas,
myths and superstition under the influence of modernity. Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer conceptualised
the technocratic industrial society is a product of modernity where emotions, ritualism, orthodoxy are replaced
by rules of law, rationality, growth, technological development and rise of inclusive society. Karl Marx believes
that modernity per se cannot be conceptualised as good or bad. The major product of modernity i.e. industry
is controlled by class it generates alienation therefore the instruments of modernity should be controlled and
used by the state for the furtherance of equity and human happiness. Webber celebrated modernity
emphasising on expansion of legal rational authority to every sphere of life and secularisation of religion,
growth of cities and celebration of rationality.

Parson and Durkheim glorified modernity emphasising on technocratic form of division of labour,
social integration, rise of equality and possibility of mobility. Sociologist during early 19th century were
engaged in celebrating modernity for the reason that modernity evolved in Europe through a series of
transformation therefore European modernity is programmed, monitored and tested and subsequently
evaluated to obtain mass endorsement.

Stages of European modernity

Modernity in Europe evolved through rise of science during 15th - 17th century that questioned
theological judgement. It made an attempt to understand the truth through the application of rational mind.
It indicated that using his creative faculty of mind man can make a better world possible for himself.

Religious reforms: modernity in Europe came as a reaction to Orthodoxy of church that ultimately gave way
to secular religion that glorified work, commission a profit, conceptualised this world equal to paradise and
questioned the logic behind ceremonialism and ritual extravagance.
 European modernity was a search for creation of modern State driven by liberty, freedom,
citizenship, balance of power, constitutionalism which were historically unknown to the people.
Finally European modernity emphasises on breakdown of agriculture, feudal economy, rise of industrial foreign
trade, market, a culmination of profit driven by tranquillised spirit of utilitarianism.

European modernity broke down the centuries old social, cultural, political and moral traditions
giving way to the growth of technocratic, progressive, egalitarian, urbanised modern society. All the new
nations of the world considered that there is no alternative to modernity because it is only modernity that
can generate equality, happiness, growth and inclusiveness society. Modernity spread from Europe to other
parts of the world under the influence of colonialism and imperialism. Thus all colonies of the world blindly
accepted modernity to accelerate social – economic development of their society.

After First World War European modernity was questioned by a large body of scholars. They
alleged that European modernity led to the acceleration of armed race amongst different modern states of
the world. They were sceptical about most of the rich nations spending more money on defence than on social
sectors. In so-called modern society political inequality, political intolerance was substantially expanded.
Therefore questioning to modernity they indicate that morality is being used as an instrument to exploit
nature and human life as well.

Peter Berger considers modernity is a global cancer. Indicating that modernity is that you voted
for social homelessness, stimulating people to move from one country to another without any emotion and
cultural bondage with the place they live in. Hence it leads to disillusionment, restlessness. Therefore he says
social distinctions are the manifestations of modernity.

Antonio Gramsci in his theory of hegemony indicates that empirically speaking there is nothing
great in modernity for which it is universally accepted but at the same time modernity as a form of ideology
has no alternative and and this leads to human efficacy being injected into mass mind by families, schools and
rules of law and mass media from which there is no escape.

Peter Worsley consider modernity is a double edged weapon. On one hand it guarantees economic
development and affluence and on the other hand it results into homelessness, disillusionment and dependency.
Same view on modernity is reflected by Anthony Giddens in his theory of “double humanities”.

European modernity is challenged and rejected in contemporary times by post modern scholars who
consider modernity has killed distinction between public and private. It has resulted in the death of individual’s
independence. Mass media communication has invited market in the living room of man. Modern food, taste,
architecture are detached from aesthetics. Modernity has given way to governmentality, it has resulted into
pathological suffering, disillusionment and hopelessness in the minds of the people. Therefore rebellion against
modernity is evolving as centrality to the new social movement.

Modernity and tradition in India

Modernity in India has primarily evolved as colonial experience. The early social reformers like
Rajaram Mohan Roy, Keshav Chandra Sen considered Indian tradition must be questioned and altered to bridge
the gap between the high culture of Europe and low culture of India. Colonial rulers glorified the idea that
they are superior technologically and racially therefore they are born rulers, inherently intelligent and
progressive. The then non-European culture of East was superstitious, transcendental, hierarchical, antigrowth
and unequal. They justify colonial rule indicating that only colonial rule can liberate people belonging to colonies
from the stage of savagery to the stage of civilisation. Hence the early reform leaders intended to
revolutionise Indian tradition by accepting the modernity in totality. These scholars went for self introspection
and looked into the vices present in Indian culture and society in the form of caste system, such as child
marriage, ritualism, transcendence, emotional attachment towards Sanskritic values, other worldliness and
wanted to change this orientation injecting individualism, rationalism, freedom of spirit and equality.

Yogendra Singh considers that the Brahmo Samaj movement was the first step towards the
modernisation of Indian tradition. One can finds striking difference between Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj
movement. As Arya Samaj movement wanted a synthesis between Indian culture and European culture
conceptualising modernity and tradition as not contradictory to each other. Hence Indian modernity can
establish a balance between the two.

Abhijit Pathak considers that Indian intelligentsia of of 19th-century accepted modernity with
scepticism. This is manifested in the program, approach and ideology as well as scholars of Indian Renaissance
starting from Dayanand Saraswati to Mahatma Gandhi even including Nehru.

All the other intellectuals and social reformers wanted modernity for India but without the
demolition of Indian tradition and they gave importance to Anglo Sanskrit education. They wanted reforms in
caste and Hinduism but indicating that all knowledge stems from Vedas thus manifesting a culturally myopic
orientation.

Vivekananda, Bankim Chandra, Aurobindo Ghosh all appreciated modernity with a lot of scepticism
and most of them established a connectivity between Western and Indian values. Both Bankim Chandra and
Rajaram Mohan Roy glorified the teachings of Upanishad. Tilak used ritual festival as a symbol for political
unification of the people of India. Mahatma Gandhi realised that integration of divergent people of India is
not possible through a political - ideological program, hence he promoted religious unity among the people to
obtain freedom for India.

How modernisation has influenced the Indian tradition is discussed a sociologist in three distinctive
stages.
In the first stage sociologist conceptualised that modernity is a European experience, initially
introduced by colonial rulers and subsequently undertaken by independent government of India and the impact
of modernity on Indian society has been either substantive or peripheral.

These ideas are articulated by MN Srinivas in his analysis of westernisation and social change in
India. He considers modernisation is a value loaded concept because it is generally perceived as anything modern
is necessarily good. He prefers to use westernisation as against modernisation to understand social change in
India advocating 150 years of British rule has resulted into technological changes, institutional changes and
value transformation in Indian society. However these changes are selective, optional than being completely
wholesome. He gave the example of modern technologies like printing press, telephopnes, newspapers and other
agencies of mass media to imply how they glorified traditional values without compromising their modern
desirable roles. Therefore tradition and modernity are mutually coexistant and India and one can't replace
outrightly the other. The Indian modernity selective, preferential and partial modernity.

According to Yogendra Singh most of the sociologists studying modernity in India refuse to
understand the impact of modernity in various spheres of public and private life. He believes modernity is a
current that comes from different quarters at one go. Therefore it is highly forceful to dismantle tradition.
In his book "modernisation of Indian tradition" he writes in detail how different laws like abolition of child
marriage act, abolition of Sati, Hindu marriage act, Hindu adoption and maintenance act enormously influenced
the status of women in India. Women in traditional Indian society didn't have right over their family, children,
property, right to divorce that has now been granted to them. Hence self-assurance to women, respect to
their dignity and equality can be considered as impact of modernity in India.

With regard to technology, it has revolutionised both agrarian and industrial modes of production.
It has created massive employment opportunity. Beyond caste and family lines, modernity has accelerated
occupational mobility. However the benefits of these technologies have not reached to every sections of
society. What it calls as variation in internalisation of modernity. Yogendra Singh considers that new
technology in the sphere of production has accelerated competition between different stakeholders therefore
hierarchical economic system under the influence of modernity is developing dynamic and competitive character.
 With regard to political modernity he speaks of constitutional rules, citizenship, formation of
political parties, acceleration of public participation in democratic process indicating that traditional domination
of selective body over power has completely been demolished and different groups like peasants, factory
workers, rural communities are greatly indulging in power struggle to experience mobility.

He writes in detail about education, mobility and value transformation in India indicating that
traditional values are slowly disappearing or are on the verge of complete disappearance. Thus a feudalistic,
caste-based rural India under the influence of modernity is transformed into competitive and dynamic modern
India. This theory is supported by MS Gore and SC Dubey and others to look into series of plans, programs,
introduction of independent government to justify theory of modernity as instrumental for complete social
change in India.

TN Madan writes that people who eaccepted modernity have closed mind as compared to those
who don't go for modernity and have open mind as they question modernity.

State has nothing to do with religion i.e. secularism being an important part of our preamble to
the Constitution. But in India our social life is dominated and influenced by religion e.g. food also has cultural
implication- whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

Hilferding Rudolf talks about selective modernity i.e. democratic institutions are introduced in
India but they are not working as they are working in the West. Democratic institution, green revolution is
the symbol of modernity but beneficiaries of modernity are going for political domination without forgetting
tradition and caste. Caste is laying a foundation for the articulation of voice. Therefore Indian modernity is
Indian in character wherein Andre Beteille tells that "caste old is replaced by caste new”.

Subaltern(lower in Position are Rank) descent to modernity offered non-Brahmins in South India
to go against hierarchical order of Brahmins. BR Ambedkar indicated that modernity should be universalistic in
character. Its benefit should not be pocketed by few people therefore reservation is essential for unprotected
people for a long period of time. Modernity should be accessible to marginalised sections of the society. He
further says that modernity is a matter of choice that people should go for.

Dr Ambedkar said that in the caste system one doesn't have a choice. To make modernity
influential in India one should be allowed to choose his own caste. He did not want modernity to be free from
vims of religion. He was allergic to Hinduism and Christianity but he too wanted religion – Gandhiji wanted
Hinduism and Ambedkar wanted Buddhism. They both wanted tradition and modernity juxtaposition but how,
it differed. Dr Ambedkar believed that since the benefits of modernity is not reaching the marginalised section
they have the right to rebel.

Feminist view on modernity points out that women are twisted between official and domestic
demands. More we're going for modernity more are the women becoming victims of it. Sexual harassment and
exploitation at place of work, unequal pay for equal work has tilted the benefits of modernity strongly
towards their male counterpart.
 Protests and Social Reform movements during the
colonial period
Introduction

Protest is largely used as a concept in political science and sociology to explain the people's desire
for change. Protests may or may not bring forward qualitative change but it offers a sense of satisfaction, a
form of meaning and symbolic gratification to the common man in any civil society.

Protest is not incidental or accidental. Protests are driven by interest, ideology. When protest is
driven by ideology, it becomes sustainable and offer foundation to social movements. Liberal sociologist consider
protest as multidimensional because it can be economic, political, cultural and social.

Protest should be discussed in terms of durability, impact on larger society and degree of
participation of the people. It's effectiveness can also be evaluated by the way it is organised, its durability
and finally ideological support and resource mobilisation for its continuity. Ramchandra Guha considers protest
is manifested in different forms like Pradarshan,Rasta Roko,,Jal Samadhi, Fast unto Death( recent Anna
Hazare’s protest), Gherao etc. Depending upon the intensity of problems addressed, peoples manifest
different forms of protest. Sociological speaking protest is a symbolic manifestation of People's Power who are
dissatisfied with the policies, programmes and symbolic form of cultural domination introduced either by
dominant class or by the state. Protestant is foundation to social change therefore study of social protest
indicates dynamics, inherent contradictions present in social life.

In colonial India a series of social reform programme was initiated by Indian intelligentsia to inject
universalistic, egalitarian, humanistic element into Hindu society that was fragmented by caste systems and
Brahminic orthodoxy. Hierarchical Hindu social systems, legitimisation of inequality on the basis of caste and
gender are the reasons for which internal reforms became essential. Hindu reform programme was driven by
two distinctive criteria:

Firstly to promote unity among all sections of Hindus who were divided on the basis of sectarian
identities. Therefore worshipping different kinds of gods and engaging into conflicts and that is producing
opportunities for other religious communities to dominate one over the other in Indian society .
Therefore unity among Hindus is essential for the survival of Hindu culture and tradition.

Secondly In order to prove that Indian culture is equal, accommodative, liberal, reflexive, dynamic
like Western culture Hinduism must have to abandon ritual orthodoxy and ceremonialism. It is further
 believed that for the sustainability of Indian society people belonging to different religious faith must
have to come together evolving a sense of brotherhood to promote unity among the people of India.

Driven by these twin ideology, to parallel systems of reforms were introduced in India. One was
initiated by Arya Samaj movement and subsequently taken up by Theosophical Society-which advocated ‘Suddhi
movement’ and the other which was initiated by Brahmo Samaj led by Rajaram Mohan Roy and subsequently
taken by Ramakrishna Mission.

Arya Samaj movement wanted to eliminate attributes of polytheism, ritualism, Brahminic

supremacy, sectarian division which persisted in Hindu culture germinating pathological elements resulting into
intra-cultural conflict. It believed that no other religious text except Vedas should be considered sacred. It
spoke about unity of faith among all Hindus asking them to abandon caste system, pilgrims visit,
untouchability and glorify idea of purity of soul and promote fraternity.

Arya Samaj emphasised that once Varna was greatly based upon its qualities and capabilities than
on the basis of birth. This movement fascinated a large body of Shudras in case of North India to go for
Sanskritisation and challenge Brahminic monopoly. The rise of Jats in North India can be attributed to the
impact of Arya Samaj movement. This movement was supported by Lala Lajpat Rai and other nationalist
leaders who believed that tranquillised Hinduism can unify the people of India who can offer resistance to
colonial power.

Arya Samajists accelerated Suddhi movement in different parts of the country and encouraged the
converts to revert back into the fold of Hindu community. The glorification of Hindu culture is a symbolic
idiom to public mobilisation which offered foundation to the nationalist movement in India. Theosophical
society driven by ideology of Max Muller perceived that Hindu cultural tradition is both unique and ancient.
The leaders of the society glorified the cosmic teachings of Bhagwat Gita, Vedas, Upanishads and indicated
Hindu theological doctrine are analytical and logical and therefore it could offer a solution to all the problems
of the world.

Liberal cultural movement( Brahmo Samaj: Brahmo Samaj movement) was much more dynamic and
inclusive as against Arya Samaj movement. It believed that India cannot get away from ignorance, poverty,
social discrimination and inequality without multiple forms of reform introduced from different areas of life. It
emphasised on women empowerment, liberal education, secular values and challenged the caste system
,Brahminic orthodoxy and Hindu religion in totality.
 It borrowed ideas from Upanishads and explain the teachings of Upanishads from a rationalistic
perspective. One finds out a strong correspondence between the teachings of Brahmo Samaj and Ramakrishna
Mission as Ramakrishna Mission speaks about:
 unity of God,
 Universality of truth,
 secular ideals,
 fraternity among people belonging to different religious faith.

It did not have any political agenda like fighting war against British. It emphasised on creation of
missionaries and provided a platform for glorification of religious tolerance, missionaries activities. It opened up
schools and colleges in different parts of the country and indicated salvation can be obtained only to
knowledge.

In conclusion all these three movements were initiated by upper-class, upper caste Indians to bring
reforms in Hindu society preaching thet there shouldn't be hierarchical social order and that society can be
transformed into egalitarian system driven by the principle of unity, harmony and equality.

Many scholars indicated that early reform movements could not achieve considerable success
because most of the movements were initiated by upper-class, middle-class youth who did not have influence
over the masse psychology in a big way, most of the teachings of this movement were highly abstract and
philosophical which common man failed to understand.

As a reaction to these movements parallel movements were initiated by subaltern groups who
glorified the idea that the reform movements are intending to re-establish Brahminic, Sanskritic domination
over the masses at large.

Ghanshyam Shah makes a distinction between culture and class movement indicating reform
movements wanted to bring change within system whereas peasant movement wanted to bring change off the
system.
Yogendra Singh considers that early reforms programme largely explained India’s quest for
modernity abandoning its association with the long Orthodox cultural tradition. Therefore modernity in India
primarily enter through Indian Renaissance involving upper caste and upper-class.

Subaltern Reform movements

 Desire for change in colonial India was not just an upper caste, middle-class aspiration rather the
temptation for change to rebellion and protest was glorified in southern India and Maharashtra in the form of
Self-respect Movement, SNDP Movement, Satya Shodak Samaj Movement.

Jyotiba Phule laid the foundation of Satya Shodak Samaj movement in Maharashtra which glorified
the ideology that indigenous rulers of India belong to Shudra community. Their land was full of prosperity,
harmony and unity. However, with the advent of Aryans into North India and subsequently their conquest
over the other parts of the country injected caste systems into traditional egalitarian society. Caste identity,
variation in occupations based upon caste divided the Shudras who were historically equal. The Shudras in their
own soil, forgetting their own culture started fighting war with each other.

Thus people started evaluating their status with reference to Brahminic ideas, practices and the
concept of Paap- Punya, ritualism was introduced in the society as a result masses were deprived of their
economic, political, civil rights. Jyotiba Phule wanted all the non-Brahmins of West India to develop a
newfound identity of Bahujan and stand unified together against Hindu culture, Brahminic orthodoxy and
ceremonialism. He gave a new identity to all the non-Brahmins of Maharashtra as Marathas. Therefore the
rise of Maratha consciousness as against Brahminic consciousness is a manifestation of subaltern cultural
protest.

Self-respect movement in South India was initiated by Ramasamy Naicker. This movement
encourage unity among all the non-Brahmins of South India indicating that South Indian culture is ancient,
unique and endogenous. Caste is pathological element introduced into egalitarian sort Indian society. He
equated the position of non-Brahmins with that of blacks in the West and encourage the non-Brahmins to go
for education, small family names and stay away from spiritual activities and commit oneself to intensive
economic activities. He asked people to glorify their self-identity rather than to be tempted by
Sanskritisation and added reservation in provincial assemblies on the basis of caste.

It is through his leadership the people forgetting inter-caste differences unified and seized state
power from 1920 onwards under the banner of Dravidian movement. During this movement anti-Brahminic,
anti Sanskritic, anti Hindu and anti-North Indian sentiments got momentum. This movement cannot be
considered as secessionist movement because it was a Protest against an alien culture enforced upon the
indigenous community. When GS Ghurye considers this movement as secessionist MS Rao call this movement
as reactionary reflexive movement.

SNDP Movement was initiated by Narayanan Guru who was a great admirer of Gandhiji. He
initiated protest against the Brahmin in Kerala, asking the non-Brahmins and non-Nair caste to stand unified.
He ran parallel schools and temples for lower caste in which priests and teachers were belonging to lower caste
origin. He indicated that Brahminic supremacy is a product of the access to education, Association with your
occupation. If non-Brahmins follow this secular standard then they will be never subdued to Brahmins.

The subaltern movement offered foundation to Dr Ambedkar to search for justice and equality for
the Dalits in India. Ambedkar rejected Manu Smrity, he was unhappy with the reform movement initiated by
Gandhiji. He instituted Jat-Pat-Todak Samaj and believed that one cannot get justice and equality staying
within the framework of caste and Hinduism. Hence he encouraged conversion into the fold of Buddhism. He
believed that historic discrimination associated with them cannot be addressed by social reforms. Hence he
suggested constitutional guarantee for freedom, liberty and equality for the Dalit community in India.

In conclusion it can be advocated that reform programmes in India was initiated from two sectors:
upper caste initiated reforms to make Hindu culture and Indian society more inclusive, egalitarian and
accommodative;
the subaltern group conceptualised these reforms as a strategy to re-enslave the marginalised groups in a big
way. Therefore rejecting these reforms they went for organised protests against caste and Hinduism and
wanted distinctive and equalitarian identity for themselves.
Social reforms indicate inherent dialectics present in colonial period where different stakeholders of the society
like middle-class, upper caste, Dalits and backward classes had different vision about social change in India.

Peasants Movements

From 1857 to 1920 a series of peasant movement came into prominence in agrarian India.
Peasant movements advocate offered a sense of integration among the people cutting across their religious
caste and language. Most of the peasant movements came as a reaction to:

 Growth of absentee landlordism,

 the presence of large body of unauthorised zamindars,
 forced eviction of peasantry from the land on the grounds of non-payment of revenues,
 land tenure system introduced by the British,,
 high interest rates imposed on the peasants on seasonal loans,
 no improvement in conditions of agriculture,
 brutality of police and private army of landlords,
 no effective measures to protect patients from natural calamities.
 The plight of patients were universally same throughout India but their conditions, locations and
identities were different therefore all the movements e.g. Eka Movement, Moplah Rebellion, Kheda Satyagrah
offered a platform for the rise of endogenous leadership who spoke in the, language about common problems
of the people. This led to integration of people of India and it manifested in the form of protest against the
exploitative colonial policies.

Peasants movements offered foundation to the rise of Kisan Sabha, that started operating from
every village, encouraged people to come out of their home, discuss their common plights, evolved strategies
so as to address to their sufferings and exploitation.

By 1930s Kisan Sabha movement made an all India presence in different parts of the country
under the banner of “All India Kisan Sabha”. The members of the Sabha started burning tax records, attacked
police, engaged in war with the private army of landlords compelling them to restructure tax rules to the
advantage of peasantary. Kisan Sabha offered a platform for the coalition between different groups of Indian
population. As a result coordination was established between landlord, intelligentsia and Indian masses which
provided a solid platform for Nationalist Movement in India.

Patient protest was not just confined to the heartlands of the country rather Birsa Munda
movement, Santhal rebellion, Koel Uprising got a momentum in central part of tribal India. A R Desai rightly
points out that Peasant Movement in India broke down the regional, linguistic and tribal-caste division among
the people of India injecting into them a common class consciousness. Colonial land revenue policy driven by
capitalist interest reduced Indian peasants worse than proletariats in comparison to capitalist Britain. As a
result deposed landlords, poor peasants, middle-class youths in one tone and spirit glorified the idea of Indian
nationalism.

Thus protest and movement in India had a historic impact on the rise of modern India indicating
that exploitation, poverty as a form of one's experience can override the distinction among people which was
historically glorified in terms of caste and culture.
 Industrialisation and Urbanisation in India
Growth of Urban Settlements in India

In simple words, the process of urbanisation denotes population growth of the cities and
towns. Sociologically, it also denotes the spread of urban way of life to the country-side. Thus, the
process of urbanisation has demographic as well as social dimensions. In present times, with the spread
of industrialisation, the process of urbanisation has received unprecedented momentum all over the
world and more specifically in the third world countries. It is predicated, on the basis of the current
rates of urbanisation, that within a few decades the urban population of the third world countries
will grow twice that of the present industrialised societies.

The rapid growth of urban population in the third world countries has led to the
availability of public utilities becoming scarce. In India, such a situation in big cities has made it very
difficult for the local administration to cope with the increasing population and arrive at any enduring
solution. In social science, this has led to formulation of the controversial notion of over-urbanisation.
In order to ameliorate the fast deteriorating conditions of urban living systematic urban policy and
effective measures, urban renewal have become inevitable in India and all other third world countries.

Urbanisation in its demographic sense refers to the trends of growth of the urban
population. In societal context and in its sociological sense it also denotes a distinct way of life
typically associated with living in the city and the process of transforming rural ways of life into
urban ones.

Urbanisation has its bearing on social relationships in community living. The relationships
of community-living tend to become impersonal, formal, goal oriented, contractual and transitory.
With urbanisation, transformation of economic activities from the agricultural sector to the non-
agricultural sector takes place, and the proportion of population engaged in secondary and tertiary
sectors of activities increases with division of labour and specialisation of work. Further, the process
of urbanisation also leads to breakdown in the functioning of traditional institutions and patterns of
behaviour and of social control. It leads to a situation of continuity and change in the sense that the
traditional forms often continue to persist, but their functions undergo major re-adaptations in the
face of urbanisation. As pointed out by Yogendra Singh, “many new roles, often rational and modern
in orientation, are added on to the traditional institutional forms.” In India, the traditional
institutions like caste, joint family and neighbourhood, etc., offer ample evidence of such continuity
and change in cities.
 Urban growth coupled with industrial development induces rural-urban migration whereby
the cities of bigger size, offering opportunities of improving life, tend to overflow with the rural
migrants. On the one hand, such migration accelerates the pace of urbanisation and, on the other, it
creates excessive population pressure on the existing public utilities with the result that cities suffer
from the problems of slums, crime, unemployment, urban poverty, pollution, congestion, ill-health and
several deviant social activities. In this context, it is essential to know the various facets of over-
urbanisation and urban problems in India.

Urbanisation has been viewed as an important force of social change. In India, this
process has, on the one hand, meant economic growth, political change, new values and new
attitudes. It reflects also the elements of continuity between rural and urban social structures.

Socio-cultural Character :

In the process of urbanisation the towns and cities of India have achieved heterogeneous
character in terms of ethnicity, caste, race, class and culture. In the urban areas there has always
been coexistence of different cultures. Studies show that though various ethnic and/or caste groups
have adjusted themselves with each other in the city, they have also tried to maintain their
traditional identity. The migrants have maintained distinctive cultural traditions in the towns. Various
migrant groups have maintained their own cultural identity.

N.K. Bose points out that the migrants tend to cluster around people with whom they
have linguistic, local, regional, caste and ethnic ties. A study by Jagannathan and Haldar on the
pavement-dwellers in Calcutta shows that they retain close ties with kinship and caste groups for
socializing and transmitting or receiving information from the village. Thus cultural pluralism has been
an important socio-cultural dimension of the urbanites. Social stratification has taken a new form in
the urban society. It is assumed that with urbanisation caste transforms itself into class in the urban
areas. But caste systems do exist in the cities though with significant organizational differences.

Marriage and family are two important aspects of social life. In the urban areas caste
norms have been flexible with regard to the selection of mates. There have been increasing
opportunities for the free mixing of young men and women. Again the voluntary associations have
encouraged inter-caste marriages. As a result there have been more inter-caste and inter-religious
marriage in the urban areas than earlier. Though it has been pointed out that joint families are
breaking down in the urban areas.
PROBLEMS OF URBAN AREAS

The current process of urbanisation has faced many problems in different parts of India. The most
important of these are:

 Over Urbanisation;
 Inadequate Housing;
 Unsafe and insufficient water supplies;
 inefficient and inadequate transportation facility;
 pollution;
 environmental decay;
 emergence of slum;
 migration;
 problem of sanitation and hygiene.

In India, urbanisation along with westernisation and modernisation has furthered

the process of rapid social change both in the rural and in the urban areas. One of the important
results of urbanisation is the rural to urban migration. Migration has become a continuous process
affecting the social, economic and cultural lives of the villagers widely.

Srinivas pointed out that urbanisation in southern India has a caste component and
that, it was the Brahmin who first left the village for the towns and took advantage of western
education and modern professions. At the same time as they retained their ancestral lands they
continued to be at the top of the rural socio-economic hierarchy. Again, in the urban areas they had
a near monopoly of all non-manual posts.

As a result of migration there has been a flow of urban money into the rural areas.
Emigrants regularly send money to their native villages. Such money facilitates the dependants to
clear off loans, build houses and educate children.

The urban centres of India have become the centres of national and international
linkages. At present, many cultural traits are diffused from cities to the rural areas. For example,
dress patterns like pants, shirts, ties, skirts, jeans etc. diffuse from cities to the rural areas. Besides
these, new thoughts, ideologies are also diffused from the cities to the rural areas due to increase in
communication via radio, television, newspaper, computer, the Internet and telephone. The urbanism,
which emerges in the cities gradually, reaches to the rural areas, depending on their proximity to the
cities .

Thus it can be concluded by saying, that urbanisation has great sociological importance.
The rapid pace of industrialisation as a necessary corollary to globalisation is playing an important role
in the modernisation of Indian society,transforming it faster than one could imagine. The differing
viewpoints held by various sociologist wherein one expects urbanisation as a leading force pushing
Indian society towards modernisation thereby transforming caste into class, while on the other hand
sociologists like MN Srinivas points out that it is transforming caste old into caste new rather than
changing caste into class.
 Slum and deprivation in urban areas

The current process of urbanisation has faced many problems in different parts of India.
The most important of these has been the development of slums, in the urban areas. Slum
population accounts for a substantial share of urban population in all types of cities in India. Even a
planned city like Chandigarh has not escaped slums.

Slums are characterized by substandard housing, overcrowding and lack of electrification,

ventilation,sanitation, roads and drinking water facilities. Slums have been the breeding ground of
diseases, environmental pollution, demoralisation, and many social tensions. Crimes, like juvenile
delinquency, gambling, have also increased in number in slum areas.

The National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, has recorded that the emergence of slums is
essentially the product of three forces:

 demographic dynamism of a city attracting more people from the rural areas offering greater
potential for employment;
 its incapacity to meet the rising demand for housing; and
 the existing urban land policies, which prohibit the access of the poor to the urban land
market.

Characteristics of Slums

The physical aspects and general conditions of the slums are by and large the same everywhere. The
foremost characteristics of slums are:

 Dilapidated and poor houses in slums are made of poor design and scrap materials. These are
often raised on unauthorised land.
 High density of population and housing leads to over-crowding and congestion; one room is
often used for all practical purposes of domesticating living.
 Lack of public utilities and facilities, such as, drainage, sanitation, water taps, electric light,
health centres, common latrines and public parks, etc., are widely observable characteristics of
slums.
 The slum-dwellers are functionally integrated with the mainstream of the city life, yet the
high incidence of deviant behaviour such as crime, juvenile delinquency, prostitution, drug use,
beggary, illegitimacy, illicit distilling of liquor, gambling and other social evils are associated with
slum areas. It does not mean that all those residing in slums are necessarily associated with
 such deviant behaviour. The slum areas, socially and physically provide greater opportunity for
such kinds of deviant behaviour.
 Though the slum-dwellers are functionally integrated to the city life, apathy and social
isolation characterise a slum. It means that largely slums are subject to neglect and apathy of
the larger community. These areas are looked down upon and considered inferior. Such a
reaction from the larger community renders slums into social isolation, detached from the city
as a whole. Under these circumstances, the slum-dwellers find it almost impossible to improve
these conditions through their own efforts.

In case of India it is estimated that almost 36% of the GDP is coming out of informal
sector. In every Indian city people migrate from villages to urban centre in search of livelihood. People
living in slums are not always poor and marginalised. Looking at the growing cost of urban land, some
of the traders and land mafias encroach over the land in slums and rent it out. They wait till the
land gets authorised, which usually happens just before the election. Therefore slum operates as a big
source of profit for them.

People living in particular slum largely come from one area therefore they addresse to
each other in primary kinship terms and follow traditional form of rituals. Therefore slums are
evolving into mini cultural Centre.

Slums manifest cultural poverty because people living in slums do not have access to
education, political participation therefore they engage themselves in typical form of activities which
are not respected and non-rewarding.Contradicting to this MSA Rao advocate that slums are not the
‘centres of cultural poverty’ rather they are ‘centres of cultural prosperity’. People living in slums
glorify, practice and promote their culture and considered outsiders as suffering from cultural poverty.

MS Gore conceded that slums and urban growth are complementary to each other
because for the construction of roads, buildings migrant workers come from different pockets of the
country. They offer their service at a cheaper rate to the mainstream occupation. He further said
that slum provides emotional comfort to people and therefore slum is the lifeline of urbanity, it's
the sweet spot on the beautiful face of urban India.

Marxist sociologist point out that urban centres develop out of the sweat and blood of
poor people for which they do not get any benefit. They further consider that most of the people
living in slums are accused of crime, drug paddling and other kinds of criminal activities. Slums are
used as a source of cheap labour by the urban upper and middle class and therefore growth of slum is
talking about exploitation between haves and have-nots in modern society.
 GS Ghurye in his book “sociology of slums” consider that slums are the other cultures
that doesn't carry commonalities with Sanskritic Hindu culture therefore, protest movement coming
out from the slum is questioning to the unity and integrity of Indian society.

In conclusion it can be advocated that slums is not a challenge to urban planners, rather it is an area
of sociological research that takes into consideration the factors like:

 functions and dysfunctions of slums,

 slums and social change,
 slums and deviance.
 Informal Sector

The informal sector or informal economy is defined as that part of an economy that is
not taxed, monitored by any form of government, or included in any gross national product (GNP),
unlike the formal economy, in India around 70% of the potential working population earn their living
in the informal sector. Agricultural workers constitute by far the largest segment of workers in the
unorganized sector.

The informal /unorganised sector in India continues to remain bigger than the organised
sector in many key respects in spite of the large control over resources and social economic power
enjoy it by the organised sector. It is nearly a century and a half ago that modern industry and the
corporate form of organisation began in India. But still these two, the main components of the
organised sector, in terms of their sharing GDP and the occupational structure, remained far from
occupying a substantial, leave alone, major part. Thus despite its large, substantial place in economy,
the unorganised sector is a relatively neglected sector in the arena of public policy support and
academic discourse.

Features of informal sector:

 low level of organisation; small in scale usually employing fewer than 10 workers and often
from the immediate family;
 heterogeneity in activities;
 easy entry and exit than in the case of former sector;
 usually minimal capital investment; little or no division between labour and capital;
 mostly labour-intensive work, requiring low-level skills; there is usually no formal training as
workers learn on the job;
 labour relations based on casual employment and/or social relationships as opposed to formal
contracts; employer-employee relationship is of an unwritten and informal with little or no
rights;
 due to their isolation and invisibility, workers in the informal sector are often largely unaware
of their rights, cannot organise them and have little negotiating power.

Categories of workers in the informal sector:

 Based on occupation: Small and marginal farmers, landless agricultural labourers, share croppers,
fishermen, those engaged in animal husbandry, in beedi rolling, labelling and packing, building and
construction, collection of raw hides and skins, handlooms weaving in rural areas, brick kilns and stone
quarries, saw mills, oil mills, etc.

 Based upon nature of employment: attached agricultural labourers, bonded labourers, migrant
workers, contract and casual labourers et cetera.
 Specifically distressed categories: scavengers, carriers of head loads, drivers of animal driven
vehicles, loaders, unoaders et cetera.
 Service categories: midwives, domestic workers, barbers, vegetable and fruit vendor is,
newspaper vendor's et cetera.

Problems in the informal sector

Social problems emanate from the low status of agricultural workers in the rural
hierarchy and the economic problems are due to the inadequacy of employment opportunities, poor
security of tenure, low-income and inadequate diversification of economic activity in rural areas. They
are dispersed, unorganised and generally have poor bargaining power. Due to seasonal work they often
have to migrate for alternative avenues of employment in other areas like construction etc. during
off-season.

Circumstances force many of them to borrow, from time to time, from private sources
either for consumption purposes (even to maintain a subsistence level) or to meet social obligations
(marriages, etc.) and some of them end up as bonded labourers.

The issues and problems of home based workers are very complex because of the absence
of any direct master-servant or employer-employee relationship between the home worker and the
person or organization for whom he works. The relationship being ambiguous and indefinite, the
home worker is subjected to exploitation in various forms.

In India, there is no authentic data on home based workers. Official data sources such
as Census of India, do not recognize these workers as an independent category but have included them
in the broad category of those working in house-hold Industries. As such, home based workers are
not visible in national statistics. However, it has been estimated that over 3 crore workers in the
country are home based workers. Among these, 45 lakh workers are employed in beedi rolling, 65
lakh in handloom weaving, 48 lakh. rural artisans and craft persons. The other major occupations of
the Home based workers are agarbatti makers, zari workers, papad makers, cobblers, lady tailors,
carpenters, etc.
 One of the major features of construction industry is that it is prone to risks of
accidents. Due to non-detection and non-reporting, accurate statistics of the number of such
accidents is difficult to obtain.

Several other problems faced by workers in the informal sector are:

 sexual exploitation of women migrant workers;

 very less amount of money paid in the form of wage,
 most of the migrant workers in the informal sector live in slums with poor sanitation leading
to health hazard.

Social security measures taken by government for workers in the unorganised sector

Of late, the issue of provision of social security to the growing segment of unorganized
sector workers gained enhanced significance in the development discourse in India. Various efforts of
the Government of India, in recent years, such as designing of new social security schemes, recasting
of earlier schemes, introduction of innovative methods towards effective identification and enrolment
of beneficiaries, contemplation of comprehensive legislations to ensure social protection for
unorganised sector workers and so on testify a paradigm shift in the social security front. These
schemes are in the nature of:

 centrally funded social assistance programs,

 social insurance scheme,
 social assistance through welfare funds of Central and State governments, and
 public initiatives.

The centrally funded social assistance programs include the employment oriented poverty
alleviation programmes such as Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojna, employment assurance scheme,
national social assistance programme comprising old-age pension, family benefits and maternity benefits
to address the social security needs of the people below the poverty line.The social insurance scheme
include several schemes launched by the Central and State governments for the benefit of weaker
section e.g.Janshree Bima Yojna, Rashtriya Swasthya bima Yojna, etc.

Several public institutions and agencies are also imparting various kinds of social security
benefits to the selected group of workers. Among these Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA)
has made significant achievement in promoting social security through the formation of cooperatives.
 Child Labour in India

Millions of children in today's world undergo the worst forms of child labor which
includes Child Slavery, Child prostitution, Child Trafficking, Child Soldiers. In modern era of material
and technological advancement, children in almost every country are being callously exploited. The
official figure of child laborers world wide is 13 million. But the actual number is much higher. Of the
estimated 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 who are economically active, some 50
million to 60 million between the ages of 5 and 11 are engaged in intolerable forms of labor. Among
the 10 to 14year-old children the working rate is 41.3 percent in Kenya, 31.4 percent in Senegal,
30.1 percent in Bangladesh, 25.8 percent in Nigeria, 24 percent in Turkey, 17.7 percent in Pakistan,
16.1 percent in Brazil, 14.4 percent in India, 11.6 percent in China.

ILO estimated that 250 million children between 5 and 14 work for a living, and over
50 million children under age twelve work in hazardous circumstances. United Nations estimate that
there were 20 million bonded child laborers worldwide. Based on reliable estimates, at least 700,000
persons to 2 million, especially girls and children, are trafficked each year across international borders.
Research suggests that the age of the children involved is decreasing. Most are poor children between
the ages of 13 and 18, although there is evidence that very young children even babies, are also
caught up in this horrific trade. They come from all parts of the world. Some one million children
enter the sex trade, exploited by people or circumstances. At any one time, more than 300,000
children under 18 - girls and boys - are fighting as soldiers with government armed forces and armed
opposition groups in more than 30 countries worldwide. ILO estimates that domestic work is the
largest employment category of girls under age 16 in the world.

India has the dubious distinction of being the nation with the largest number of child
laborers in the world. The child labors endure miserable and difficult lives. They earn little and
struggle to make enough to feed themselves and their families. They do not go to school; more than
half of them are unable to learn the barest skills of literacy. Poverty is one of the main reasons
behind this phenomenon. The unrelenting poverty forces the parents to push their young children in
all forms of hazardous occupations. Child labor is a source of income for poor families. They provide
help in household enterprises or of household chores in order to free adult household members for
economic activity elsewhere. In some cases, the study found that a child's income accounted for
between 34 and 37 percent of the total household income. In India the emergence of child labor is
also because of unsustainable systems of landholding in agricultural areas and caste system in the rural
areas.

Bonded labour refers to the phenomenon of children working in conditions of servitude in

order to pay their debts. The debt that binds them to their employer is incurred not by the
children themselves but by their parent. The creditors cum employers offer these loans to destitute
parents in an effort to secure the labor of these children. The arrangements between the parents
and contracting agents are usually informal and unwritten. The number of years required to pay off
such a loan is indeterminate. The lower castes such as Dalits and tribal make them vulnerable groups
for exploitation.

The environmental degradation and lack of employment avenues in the rural areas also
cause people to migrate to big cities. On arrival in overcrowded cities the disintegration of family
units takes place through alcoholism, unemployment or disillusionment of better life etc. This in turn
leads to emergence of street children and child workers who are forced by their circumstances to work
from the early age. The girls are forced to work as sex -workers or beggars. A large number of girls
end up working as domestic workers on low wages and unhealthy living conditions.

Sometimes children are abandoned by their parents or sold to factory owners. The last
two decades have seen tremendous growth of export based industries and mass production factories
utilizing low technologies. They try to maintain competitive positions through low wages and low labor
standards. The child laborers exactly suit their requirements. They use all means to lure the parents
into giving their children on pretext of providing education and good life. In India majority of children
work in industries, such as cracker making, diamond polishing, glass, brass-ware, carpet weaving, bangle
making, lock making and mica cutting to name a few. 15% of the 100,000 children work in the
carpet industry of Uttar Pradesh. 70-80% of the 8,000 to 50,000 children work in the glass
industry in Ferozabad. In the unorganized sector child labor is paid by piece-by-piece rates that result
in even longer hours for very low pay.

Inadequate schools, or lack of schools, or even the expense of schooling leaves some
children with little else to do but work. The attitudes of parents also contribute to child labor; some
parents feel that children should work in order to develop skills useful in the job market, instead of
taking advantage of a formal education. From the time of its independence, India has committed
itself to be against child labor.

Article 24 of the Indian constitution clearly states that "No child below the age of
fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or employed in any hazardous
employment" The Bonded Labour System Act of 1976 fulfills the Indian Constitution's directive of
ending forced labour. A Plethora of additional protective legislation has been put in place. There are
distinct laws governing child labour in factories in commercial establishments, on plantations and in
apprenticeships. There are laws governing the use of migrant labour and contract labour. The Child
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation law) of 1986 designates a child as a person who has not
completed their 14th year of age. It purports to regulate the hours and the conditions of child
workers and to prohibit child workers in certain enumerated hazardous industries. However there is
neither blanket prohibition on the use of child labour, nor any universal minimum age set for child
workers. All of the policies that the Indian government has in place are in accordance with the
Constitution of India, and all support the eradication of Child Labor. The problem of child labor still
remains even though all of these policies are existent. Enforcement is the key aspect that is lacking in
the government's efforts.

Child labor is a global problem. If child labour is to be eradicated, the governments and
agencies and those responsible for enforcement need to start doing their jobs. The most important
thing is to increase awareness and keep discussing ways and means to check this problem. We have to
decide whether we are going to take up the problem head-on and fight it any way we can or leave it
to the adults who might not be there when things go out of hand.
 Working Class: Structure, Growth, Class Mobilisation

The question ‘who and what is working class’ is not an easy one to answer. There are
several reasons for this. The working class is not a cohesive entity and it has numerous differences
and contradictions. There is a problem of where to draw the line. Who belongs to the working class
and who does not? The difference further extends in terms of skill, sex, age, income and caste. Hence
the working class is a complex, contradictory and constantly changing entity. One cannot have a single
definition which will be all inclusive. This is because of the blurring of boundaries between classes and
the different working class. For example, a worker in 1970 is not the same as a worker in 2005.
That is, the composition, the size and the character of a class changes over a period of time.
Therefore the requirement is of a series of definitions, which have to change in accordance with the
changes in social structure.

In the Marxian scheme, the capitalist society is characterised by two principal classes:
bourgeoisie and proletariat. Bourgeoisie owns the means of production and proletariat sell their labour
for wages in order to live.

India has a multi-structural economy where a number of pre-capitalist relations of

production co-exist with capitalist relations of production. Correspondingly, here a differentiated
working class structure exists i.e. the numerous types of relations of production, consumption and
accumulation of surplus combine to produce a variety of forms of the existence of the working class.
This is further compounded by the structural features of Pan-Indian society along with local
conditions. So the composition of the working class is affected by the caste, tribe, ethnic origin and
the gender based division of labour between male and female and associated patriarchy. This implies
that despite internal structural differences and the relations of productions through which working
people have been and continues to be, there exists a group of people denoted as ‘working class’.

Growth of Working Class in India

The modern working class came into being with the rise of capitalist mode of
production. This mode of production brought with it the factory type of industry. In other words,
rise of factory system of production and working class happened simultaneously. Conversely, without a
factory industry there can be no working class but only working people.

The formative period: The forced intrusion of British capital in India devastated the old economy but
did not transplant it by forces of modern capital economy. So, traditional cottage industry and
weavers famed for their skill through the centuries were robbed of their means of livelihood and were
uprooted throughout India. This loss of the old world with no new gains led to extreme
impoverishment of the people. . Subsequently, with the introduction of railways and sporadic

growth of some industries, a section of these very people at the lowest rung of Indian society who
had been plodding through immense sufferings and impoverishment in village life entered the modern
industries as workers. The first generation of factory workers, it appears, came from this distressed
and dispossessed section the village people.

Emergence of working class: With the growth of modern factory industries, the factory workers
gradually shaped themselves into a distinct category. The concentration of the working class in the
cities near the industrial enterprises was an extremely important factor in the formation of the
workers as a class. Similar conditions in factories and common living conditions made the workers feel
that they had similar experiences and shared interests and react in similar fashion. In other words,
the principal factors underlying the growth and formation of the working mass as a class in India in
the latter half of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, I bear similarities
with the advanced countries of Europe.

Hence, the consciousness of being exploited by the capitalists/ owners of factories was evident as
early as 1888, when workers of Shyamnagar Jute Mill assaulted the manager.That is, the reactions
against the exploitation in early phases were marked by riots, affrays, assaults and physical violence.

Consolidation of the working class: The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th was
marked by the organised national movements and consolidation of the working class. The national
movement, especially in Bengal and Maharashtra had already assumed a developed form which exerted
a great impact on the later national awakening of the entire country. The partition of Bengal in the
year 1905 aroused bitter public indignation and gave rise to mass national upsurge. This political
development worked as a favorable condition for the Indian working class too for moving ahead with
its economic struggles and raising them to a higher pitch. These struggles led to the laying of the
foundation of the first trade unions of the country. Moreover, the turn of the century was also
marked by the advance in industrialization with concomitant swelling of the working class in numerical
strength.

Nature and Structure of the Working Class Today

Given such an eventful history and evolution of the working class in India, it is
worthwhile to examine the nature and structure of the working class in the present circumstances.
As mentioned above, due to the existence of multi-structural economy and effects of primordial
affiliations, a variety of forms of the working class exists in India. On top of all the differences, the
differences in wage is also the basis of divisions among the working class. On the basis of wage, there
are four types of workers.
 First, those workers who are permanent employees of the large factory sector and get
family wage . (By ‘family wage’ it is meant that the wage of the worker should be sufficient to
maintain not only the individual but also the worker’s family).

Second, there is a large and preponderant section of the working class that does not
get a family wage.This includes workers in the older industries like cotton and jute textiles, sugar
and paper.

Third, there is a section of the working class at the bottom of the wage scale — the
mass of contract and sometimes casual labourers in industry, including construction, brick making and
other casual workers.

Fourth, below all these lie a reserve army of labour, who work in petty commodities
production in petty trading, ranging from hawking to rag-picking. They are generally engaged in the
informal sector and carry on for the want of sufficient survival wage.

The existence of a majority of workers, who are not paid family wage means that either
the worker gets some form of supplement from other non-capitalist sectors or the worker and
his/her family cut down their consumption below the minimum standard. Not only is there wage
differential among the working class, there is also variation in the terms of working conditions. Hence,
better paid labour has also much greater job security. However the workers on the lower end of the
wage scale have not only job security but also considerable extra-economic coercion and personal
bondage which leads to lack of civil rights. Similarly, working conditions for the low paid workers are
uniformly worse than for high paid workers. So, in the same plant or site there is a clear difference
in the safety measures for the two groups of workers. The situation worsens further with regard to
women workers.

Social Background of Indian Working Class

Indian working class, as mentioned earlier, came from diverse social backgrounds in which
primordial identities such as caste, ethnicity, religion and language played very important roles. In
recent years, the significance of these elements has been reduced but they do persist nonetheless.
The dominant position of the workers from upper caste was also brought out in a study of Kerala.
This study points out that in higher income jobs upper castes dominate whereas Dalits/adivasis have
preponderance in low wage jobs.

The middle castes are concentrated in middle to bottom ranges. Even in public sector,
the representation of backward castes, schedule castes and tribes is not up to their proportion in the
population. Moreover, it seems that caste based division of labour is followed in the class III and IV
jobs in government and public sector enterprises. So the jobs of sweepers are reserved for dalits and
adivasis. In coal mines, hard physical labour of loading and pushing the coal tubs is done by dalits and
advasis. In steel plants the production work in the intense heat of coke oven and blast furnace is
mainly done by advasis and dalits. This is because of ‘pre labour market characteristic’ such as
education and land holding. So those who possessed more land and education ended up in a higher
wage sector. But then if upper and lower caste people own comparable levels of landholding and
education, the upper caste worker will get into a higher segment of the wage than the lower caste
worker. This is because of the continuing importance of caste ties in recruitment.

Caste also serves the function of ensuring the supply of cheap labour for different jobs
with the fact of not paying more than what is necessary. In other words, the depressed conditions of
adivasis and dalits helps in ensuring a supply of labour, who can be made to work at the mere
subsistence level . Hence, caste on one hand plays a role in keeping the lower sections of the society
in the lower strata of the working class, on the other hand, the upper caste get a privilege in the
labour market. Further, caste is not only a matter of marriage and to an extent residence, but
more so a continuing pool of social relation for the supply of various kinds of labour for the capitalist
mode of production.

The working class at the conceptual level seems to be fairly simple, but if one tries to
define it, the problem magnifies. The reason is that this is not a homogeneous entity. Rather it is a
complex, contradictory and constantly changing entity. Another reason is that the concept of ‘class-
consciousness’, is very slippery with regard to the working class. The consequence of this is that it is
often proclaimed that either the working class is shrinking in size or everybody except a few at the
top are working class. However the fact is that working class is a distinct entity, with characteristics
of its own. In India, the situation is much more complex because of several reasons like,

(a) the forced intrusion of British capital in India;

(b) simultaneous existence of multiple relations of production; and

(c) never ending identification of working mass with primordial features such as caste, religion and
other ethnic divisions of the society.

The coming into being and consolidation of the working class in the world as well as in
India, has been affected by local and international events of both economic and political nature. So for
carrying out further studies on the working class, these peculiarities have to be taken into account.
 Perspectives on the study of Indian society

INTRODUCTION

No intellectual discipline develops overnight. This statement is largely applicable to the

evolution of Indian sociology. Indian sociologists studying India are no different from European sociologists
studying India today, for the reason that both are using, theories, methodology to reflect on Indian
society. Indian sociology today is more committed to the study of social protests, women issues, problems
of Indian farmers, Cosmopolitisation , Globalization and getting away from the study of caste, kinship,
and family which were centrality to the study of Indian sociology from 1950 - 1980. This departure
advocates and impact on Indian sociology losing its Indianess and merging into cosmic sociological tradition
as put forward by Venugopal.

Way back in 1960s, Louis Dumont indicated that it is imperative to have a sociology for India
because western theoretical models cannot be blindly applied to the study of Indian society for two
distinctive reasons:

 Indian values are different from Western values i.e. mostly followed by Indians to regulate their everyday
social life. Ethno-sociology should be evolved as a methodology to study India and for that a sociologist
must use peoples language to understand their symbols, cultural meanings associated with their activities
to gain an understanding of Indian society without any value bias.

He himself used the dichotomy between paap and punya(purity and pollution) to understand Indian
society.

If we look for the backwards we will notice that Indian sociology from 1940s to 1960s was extremely
committed to British idea of empiricism. Village studies, caste studies were conducted by and large
number of European and Indian sociologists to examine the dynamic nature of social change in India.

Problems of Indian agriculture got sociological attention during late 1960s as a large body of
sociologists looking into the restrictive impact of land reform systems explained landlessness and poverty in
rural Indian social structure. This phase of Indian sociology is considered as golden period or maturity stage
for two reasons :

 every aspect of Indian social life was investigated and

  both Western and Indian sociologists came together to explore India from a value neutral perspective.

Field study tradition evolved as a reaction to Indological study in India during its late
formative stage i.e. from 1920s to 1940s. Indologists were the products of different schools of Indological
tradition like Indological Research Centre developed in Pune (G.S. Ghurye was associated with it),
Indological Research Centre of Lucknow, Asiatic Society of Bengal instituted by Sir William Jones.

So Indological tradition in India follows different mode of orientation. Indology of Lucknow was
more close to history whereas Pune was more close to philosophy, Sanskrit and theology. Bengal ideology
was more into critique to Indological structure following the footsteps of colonial government. These
Indologists wanted reforms in Indian culture for India's progress and development.

Various leagues of Indological Outlook in India offer Indian sociology an identity, ideology and
methodology in different forms and explain the nature of Indian society. Colonialists and nationalists were
engaged in explaining Indian society driven by their values.

Indological approach (G.S. Ghurye)

Ordinarily speaking Indological approach means the study of Indian society from Indian
perspective collecting data of Indian art, architecture, language, culture, religious texts, folklores, legends,
myths.
Indological studies also simultaneously contributed to as well as received stimulus from the efforts
made by the British scholars and officials in order to develop an in-depth knowledge of Indian society and
culture.
G.S.Ghurye’s approach distinctive from other Indological approaches for the following reasons:
 Being a student of Sanskrit Ghurye uses Sanskrit text exclusively to explain Indian society and culture.
 Being a student of Prof Rivers he uses the method of diffusion to understand evolution of caste in India
and cultural synthesis of Indian society.

Despite being a sociologist he would never make a distinction between his personal commitment to
nation-building and nationalism from his professional commitment and sociological research. Hence in many
of his writings he uses Indological data to glorify India's cultural past and manifest concern through his
writing about caste consolidation, tribal unrests and religious conflicts in India.

Thus it will be unfair to consider Ghurye as just an Indologist as most of his writings also
contain some elements of historicism, diffusionism and nationalism. He wrote 32 books cutting across
themes like ‘Sexual Behaviour of American Women’, ‘Indians Sadhus’, ‘Kalidas and Shakespeare’ ,Caste and
Race in India’, ‘Will India wither away’; speaks of diversity of his interest and distinctive approaches that
he experimented all through his academic life. Ghurye used Indological approach but unlike his
contemporaries he cannot be identified as a stereotype Indologist.

G.S.Ghurye on caste in India

Ghurye’s understanding of caste is comparative, historical and Indological as well. Unlike his
contemporaries he doesn't glorify or condemns caste rather he considers caste as a product of Indian
culture, changing with the passage of time. Hence, it is a subject of sociological interest.
Ghurye studies caste mostly as a diffusionist and a historian than as an Indologist. In his book
"caste and race in India", he agrees with Sir Herbert Risley that caste is a product of race that comes to
India along with Aryans.

Ghurye considers it as unfortunate that caste system is mostly understood in terms of

Brahminic domination. Caste has gone through process of fusion and fission in different ways in Indian
history. During Vedic period caste was a product of race. Aryans distinguished themselves from non-Aryans
just in terms of colour but subsequently different ethnic groups developed alliance/relationship with each
other and Hindu culture and values moved from Aryan community to non-Aryan communities. Aryans
never introduce themselves as Brahmins or as a superior race as against non-Brahmins. Aryan society itself
practised different kinds of occupations which were allocated to different individuals and families. On the
basis of their occupation caste names were allocated to different groups therefore Aryans society had
architects, peasants, warriors, artisans and society was highly disciplined, organised and progressive.

Ghurye tells that it may be a matter of fact that caste evolved in India with the advent of
Aryans, as their racial character was different from Indians. But at the same time there were different
racial categories present in India prior to Aryans. India was not the hometown of one racial group. Aryans
advent added one more race to the already existing ones.

Caste was not hierarchical exploitative system. Aryans carried with them caste system which
promoted discipline in their life giving them specialisation over particular occupation. No caste was superior
or inferior. Occupation change was possible. Hence Aryans became highly specialised and indigenous people
looked forward to Aryans for progress therefore they started imbibing these elements into their life.
Rulers were taught the virtues of Aryans by the Brahmins who glorified the Aryan culture. These mobile
saints spread the embodiment of caste to non-Aryans.
 Ghurye points out that caste was considered as centrality to organised form of division of
labour in Aryan society. When Aryans and indigenous communities developed interpersonal relationship
through communication and warfare ,the disciplined nature of Aryan society was appreciated by indigenous
rulers who injected the elements of caste into their social life. In addition to that priests, monasteries,
travelers glorified the virtues of Aryan caste system. Hence the element of caste radiated from northern
India to other parts of the country.

He writes that caste is originated from race and occupation stabilised it. When caste is
diffused from one area to another it negotiates with cultural environment and ecology as a result people
belonging to a given caste follow different food rules, occupation pattern and behavior.

Ghurye explains caste in India on the basis of six distinctive characteristics:

 1) segmental division of society;
 2) hierarchy;
 3) civil and religious disabilities and privileges;
 4) lack of unrestricted choice of occupation;
 5) restriction on food, drinks and social intercourse;
 6) endogamy.

He considers the above-mentioned characteristics has been questioned, challenged and altered by
various historical forces and therefore caste is a dynamic institution surviving through ages adapting to
the demand of time and therefore neither cast is great nor it reproduces common structural character
and functional ethos. Through his analysis of various structural features of caste he makes an attempt to
reject the stereotype, ideological understanding of caste as hierarchical system which is historically
undiluted and producing identical form of inequality and exploitation in time and space.

Ghurye claims that if history of Indian society is changing with time the institution of caste is
not lagging behind. Ghurye’s concern is that, caste which was once binding people together, an institution
that contributed for the evolution of India's cultura and identity is now being reduced into an institution
which is contributing towards the polarisation of society. Social conflict is challenging national unity. He
considers that caste not only sustained itself in India but it also evolved a dynamic characteristic in
response to the odds of change.

Segmental television society: there are so many division's and subdivisions of caste system. The members
of every division have fixed status, roles and tasks. According to status they have to perform their roles.
There is moral ethics, obligations and justification value behind these roles. All these roles are different in
nature from other people or other division.
 Hierarchy: Ghurye indicates that caste is hierarchical but at the same time we cannot see the same kind
of structure everywhere in the country. Who will occupy which position is debatable and questionable.
Hierarchy do exist; theoretically Brahmins occupy top position. Hierarchy is a contentious issue in other
words we can say that there is a feeling of superiority and inferiority among the people.

Civil and religious disabilities and privileges: Justification of reservation policy has its root in the civil and
religious disabilities and privileges imposed upon the people at the lowest rung of the hierarchy there are
special rights and powers to the people of higher castes while many disabilities have been imposed on
untouchables in areas of public utility. The untouchables cannot take water from public Wells. They are
not allowed to get entry in religious temples or any other social and educational places.

Lack of unrestricted choice of occupation: the occupations have been fixed by heredity. Generally they
have not been allowed to change their traditional occupations. All caste people maintain their supremacy
and secrecy in their jobs and do not allow the other caste group to join in. The upper caste people like
Brahmins are free to opt for study of religious books, while this cannot be done by other classes. The
lower natured jobs like sweeping bathrooms, washing clothes, scavenging etc have been kept in untouchable
category.

Restriction on food drink and social intercourse: some rules have been imposed upon all caste people.
Restriction on feeding and social intercourse are still prevalent in Indian society. There are two types of
food i.e. Kachha (cooked) food and Pakka (raw) food upon which certain restrictions are imposed with
regard to sharing, for example:

 caste groups from whom twice born caste people can accept Kachha food;
 caste group from whom twice born caste people can accept Pakka food;
 caste groups from whom twice born caste people can accept water but no food;
 caste groups from whom twice born caste people do not accept water or food and maintain distance.

Endogamy: Indian caste system is also polarized due to endogamy being determined primarily by Caste.
People can marry within caste only. To disobey the caste rule is not only treated as a crime but is also
condemned as a sin. The caste panchayat not only denounce inter-caste marriages but also impose severe
punishment upon those who break these rules.

Ghurye wrote that caste evolved as a system of division of labour not to glorify Brahminic
supremacy. Every jati’s Dharma was clearly specified by Hindu culture thereby compelling every jati to
make contribution for other jatis. Hence, culture cemented the differences among the people making jati
system an acceptable institution for collective happiness.
 He goes on to say that every jati perceives some epistemological knowledge like humanism,
sacrifice, brotherhood, knowledge and perseverance. Therefore value integration never glorified inequality in
Indian society. These values were taught and preached both in formal and informal ways by different
saints. He considers that this culture mitigated the difference between various ethnic groups who
accepted caste as a way of life and not as a system to divide people and inject inequality among them.

G.S Ghurye writes about caste considering it to be a product of race in India. He further says
that caste was not a product of division of labour it was only after the advent of Aryans that it gained
its prominence as a Division of Labour. Ghurye writes that caste was never a static system of
organization. It is evolving in India according to different time and situation. He says Varna is different
from caste and that division of labour was not a hierarchical phenomena. He believed that right to rituals
was a universal phenomena and not a Brahminic monopoly.

He points out that Brahmins were performing rituals for common welfare hence they were
different from others and thus they gained respect from every section of society. Brahmins were catering
to the needs of the society. Every caste and Varna was driven by same values and hence it promoted
harmony, peace and tranquility. India sustained for such a long time as a country without any centralised
rule because of common ideology and values.

Furthermore, Hindu culture was always anti-hierarchy, cosmopolitan, inclusive giving rise to the
growth of egalitarian society driven by fraternity and equality. These concepts were used in European
civilisation long after they were tested and used in India. He states that caste is a system of inequality
with Brahminic domination appear in mediaeval India due to detachment of non-Brahminic caste from
Hindu values, advent of Islamic rule and breakdown of Hindu monastery, who were instrumental in
establishing the linkage between various caste groups.This magnified the dysfunctional characteristics that
is still prevalent today. British rule also tried its best to rule over India by following the treacherous
concept of divide and rule.

Ghurye looks into the origin of caste and how it led to competition among people. Caste
evolved as a product of culture but resulted into division and compartmentalisation of people. Hinduism
should be looked in context of cosmic values it is offering.

Looking at the dysfunctional nature of caste today Ghurye points out that, when subsequently
different ethnic groups started asserting their dominance through caste consolidation they moved away
from the values of Aryan culture. Therefore caste which once evolved as the frontier of culture to
promote equity and self-sufficiency was now transformed into an institution that glorifies inequality and
social sufferings. Hence in contemporary India caste is no longer textual, ideological and cultural
institution. It has become a degree divisive institution emphasising on the six characteristics mentioned
above like segmentation of Indian society, putting people in hierarchical order, putting restrictions on food
drinks and social interrelationships, lack of unrestricted choice of occupation, civil and religious privileges
associated with higher class and denied to lower class and denouncing into caste marriages.

Ghurye concluded by saying that social institutions are a product of culture. During the process
of social change, cultural ideology got separated from social institution resulting into a situation where
institutional functions in the past are evolving into institutional dysfunction today. Therefore evolution of
caste is a testimony to its differential role at different stages of history of Indian society.

Evaluation of Ghurye’s approach

one can advocate that using historical data, diffusion method Ghurye looks into the origin of
caste ,its regional variation, its integrative role and pathological character of caste. This approach is first
of its kind i.e. liberating sociology of India from studying caste from a speculative, value centric
perspective to studying it from historical, comparative and empirical perspective. This approach of Ghurye
potentially changed the methodology and theoretical outline to the study of caste in contemporary India.

In his explanation of caste Ghurye sufficiently indicated dichotomy between the ideal culture of
caste and empirical nature of caste and on the basis of that he brilliantly illustrated social changes in
Indian society. Hence Ghurye’s understanding of caste is reflexive, critical, and judgemental.

Criticism of Ghurye by M.N .Srinivas

Srinivas points out that Ghurye’s approach to caste can be considered as Brahminical view as
he perceives that Brahmins in search of exclusivity, distinction impose certain restriction on food, dress,
rituals, manners and speech as a result their way of life stand to be distinguished from the rest.
Therefore Brahmins in search of exclusivity when stand distinctively ,others look forward to them as role
models and thus they slowly imbibe Brahminic values but could not obtain Brahminic status. Hence relative
difference between Brahmins and non-Brahmins make appearance. Those who are close to Brahmin in terms
of life standards they are known as Kshatriyas and other caste divide on the basis of proximity and
distance from Brahmins way of life.
 Therefore Srinivas criticises Ghurye for presenting a Brahminical viewpoint of the caste system
in India which subsequently offered foundation to the theory of Louis Dumont, who also presented a
similar viewpoint of Brahminical supremacy.
In defence of Ghurye it can be said that, every theory also gets influenced by the time during
which it is written. Ghurye’s sociology was written when there were very strong anti-Brahmin movements
going on in Maharashtra led by Jyotiba Phule and in Tamil Nadu initiated by Periyar.

G.S Ghurye on tribes

Ghurye considers that multiple ethnic groups were present in India prior to the entry of Aryans. Hindu
culture was not imposed on tribal communities rather synthesis between Aryan culture that was mystical,
magical, spiritual got entangled with Tantric culture, magical culture and materialistic culture of different
ethnic groups giving way to evolution of Hinduism. Therefore considering Hindu culture as Aryan culture is
nonsensical.

The tribal deities like Ganesh, Kali, and Shiva were getting equal space in Hinduism with Aryan dieties like
Indira, Vishnu, Brahma. Animism, totemism, naturalism for establishing synthesis between multiple culture
present in Indian society. As a result the tribes of India considers the Hindu society and its cultural
tradition a new home for them therefore voluntarily they assimilate themselves within the folds of Hindu
society.
Many tribal leaders like Tana Bhagat, Vishnu Bhagwat, Kabir Panthi other successfully carried Hindu
cultural attributes to tribal life. As a result the tribes of the heartland of the country sharing Hindu
values have Hinduised themselves. Hence their assimilation within Indian society is almost complete.

Ghurye writes "Tribalism always contribute towards the construction of Hindu temple that is yet to be
completed", meaning Hindu culture is evolving through a series of dialectics addressing to the demand of
people in time and space. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism largely embodied Hindu values with new ideas and
doctrines contributing for decline of Hindu culture and tradition. He considers that Hindu cultural values
were shared by tribal communities in mitigating the tribe – caste differences. Therefore tribes of India are
backward Hindus. ‘Backward’ because of epistemology of Hinduism like Sanskar, distinction between Buddhi,
Mana, Ahankar are yet to reach them even though they've already gone for Hindu life, ritual and way of
life.
Ghurye was critical to Elvin's approach of ‘isolationism’ , indicating that forced isolation of the tribes
from the larger society will accelerate suspicion leading to secessionist movement. He further indicated
that separatist movement in North East India is a product of the cultural distinction between tribes
located there and the larger Hindu society.
In conclusion one can advocate that Ghurye’s understanding of tribes and their problems largely manifest
his nationalist appeal as he considers cultural unity between tribes and caste can only promote integration
in Indian society.

G.S. Ghurye on Muslims in India

He considers that Muslims in India are greatly divided on the basis of their ethnicity, geographic location
and doctrinal affinity. However, they are integrated on the basis of common religious affiliation.
The rise of Muslim rule adversely affected the People's affiliation with Hinduism. The traditional Hindu
rulers were patronising Hindu saints and encouraging debates and discussions on Hindu values, ruling over
the masses following Hindu doctrines and ideals.This resulted into Hindu values reaching people in the form
of Administration, Justice ,participation in religious discourses thereby leading to voluntary integration
among people of India.
Islam offered alternative values and ideas that challenged the essence of
Hindu culture. However, Sufism made an attempt to establish the linkage between Hindu and Islamic
culture but this was highly confined to selected groups in Indian society. With the rise of Islam, priestly
classes concealed their identity, philosophy to discourse died out, political patronage to Hindu ideas
disappeared resulting into confusion and crisis in Indian society. Unified culture that promoted integration
in India was questioned on the basis of two distinctive cultural identities. People of India got vertically
divided giving way to great partition of India.
He suggests to Muslims to adhere to basic epistemological values of Hindu
religion i.e. bhakti, sacrifice and fraternity indicating that ideology is essential for social integration. If the
people of society follow dialectical ideology then social disintegration is inevitable. In his observation of
Muslims he also articulates nationalistic concern and suggesting cultural revivalism in search of national
unity.

The pro-Hindu stance of Ghurye was based on the conflicts engendered by

nearly 7 centuries of Islamic rule in India. The forced conversions, destruction of places of worship etc., no
doubt damaged Hindu psyche. But looking critically at Ghurye's views, it is necessary to add here that
predatory acts of Muslim rulers find no sanction in Koran. Islam does not advocate violence. What
happened was political expediency rather than commitment to faith that made the Muslim rulers use
force against the subjects. Besides, Hindu – Muslim interactions have been culturally productive and
socially beneficial. Sufism stimulated bhakti movement in India, the growth of Urdu literature, Hindustani
classical music had shared patterns of lifestyle that showed that Islamic rule had a positive side. It was a
political strategy of the British to divide the Indian society, especially the Hindus and Muslims as tyey
knew that, after the revolt of 1857 ,that they are incapable to fight them united.

G.S. Ghurye on values and social unity

Ghurye considers the unity of Indian society can be attributed to:

 Sanskritic language and Brahmi script: Sanskritic language slowly influenced various languages of
several ethnic groups as a result in many languages of India like Telugu, Kannad and all other
north Indian languages and eastern Indian languages one finds out element of Sanskrit. The only
language least influenced by Sanskrit is Tamil. However, both Sanskrit and Tamil influence
almost all languages of India and through these two languages cosmic Indian ideology reached
the masses in Indian society.
 The saints like Skandha, Shankaracharya, Agastya carried the embodiment of Hindu ideas to
South India as a result in Tamil Bhakti literature there is a promotion of cultural unity
between North and the South.

 Hindu rulers living in far-off places were marrying women belonging to other kingdoms thus
geographically distant places like Vidharbha, Udda ,Gandhar came closer to each other on the
basis of marriage. Most of the Hindu rulers practised hypergamy and that made the caste
system week. Therefore marriages also resulted into cultural unity of India.

 Ashwamedha Yagya was the source of cultural unity in India. It was a symbolic ritual in which
the ruler was making a ritual horse to move to different kingdoms giving an invitation of War
to different kings to prove their heroics. Any rural challenging to him was either defeated or
won the war leading to acceptance of sovereignty of winning ruler by the defeated one. The
war was symbolic because the rulers were driven by Hindu epistemology. Hence, no territories
were annexed by the winning ruler and also there was no looting of property of the defeated
rulers.

Finally Hindu rulers in India patronised intellectuals to get engaged in

’Tark’(debate). Such intellectuals were regularly rewarded by Hindu rulers, granted revenue
free lands and provided several other benefits. These saints were writing and interpreting
different Sanskritic texts glorifying Hindu ideals e.g. Arthshastra written by Kautilya. Ghurye
considers common ideology, text, ruling class, values radiated from Hindu culture which were
the source of Indian unity.

G.S. Ghurye on values

Values contain bodies of abstract standards that regulate our everyday

behaviour. Animals are differentiated from human beings because of values. Sometimes these
animals too have values of love etc. but differentiated because these values are not
sustainable.

Values are transmitted from one generation to another generation. Values

are injected into individual with the help of socialisation. When values undiluted or not adhered
to one behaves like a beast e.g. rapists, murderers etc.

Ghurye looking into values to understand its invisible magical power which
played an important role in unifying the people and bringing them together. It explains the
values in terms of ‘Triads’. Ghurye considers seven distinctive triads were central to Hindu
culture and tradition bringing oneness in the thinking, feeling and the acting of the people of
India who were divided on the basis of language, region, appearance, caste and occupation.
Synthesis of Hindu culture eliminated differences among the people and integrated them.

These values were not radiated from the cities and going down to masses rather both elites
and masses were internalising common values therefore manifesting common perceptions,
thoughts and way of life. For this value uniformity major role was played by saints like
Vijayan, chaitnya, Kabir and Nanak Dev. Therefore Indian unity was a product of common value
consensus that was challenged by the advent of Muslims and British rulers subsequently.

Ghurye considers differential allocation of values evolved in Indian society during 11th and 12th
century leading to collapse of Hindu kingdoms. Patronage to Hindu culture and values lost its
merit, giving way to disintegration and confusion persisted in Indian society.
 G.S. Ghurye on Vidya

Vidya (knowledge) ordinarily means pursuit of knowledge. Ghurye considers

that knowledge in Indian culture carries different meaning as compared to knowledge in Western
countries. In case of West, knowledge is classified into two types i.e. science and arts.
Methodologies to acquire these two kinds of knowledge are also different. People obtaining scientific
knowledge are identified as scientists and those acquiring the knowledge of arts are called
philosophers. On the basis of their choice students are going for one form of knowledge or other.

To its contrast in China, Confucianism was practised wherein scholars

passed on knowledge to a large audience through public speech without any personal and emotive
relationship between teacher and students. In case of India the source of all knowledge were Gurus
who taught the students in Gurukul ashrams. They personally evaluated every student so as to
determine the requirement of every single one of them and impart them desired form of knowledge.

The primary objective of knowledge/education was to dismantle ego within

their pupil and inject into them the values of tolerance, compassion, charity, humanism, patience,
endurance and sacrifice. Kautilya has also written that Vidya is very essential for two purposes:

firstly in case of India no ruler is born as divine but he has to rule over the people on the
basis of divine proclamations (cultural prescriptions). Hence it was essential for the rulers to obtain
different kinds of Vidya e.g. spiritual, metaphysical, political and materialistic. Hence Indian system of
education was both sacred and secular. It was mundane (ordinary) as well as cultural therefore Indian
education was all inclusive and cosmic.

Secondly Vidya was able to bridge the gap between rulers and subjects. The expectations of
one subject was realised by the rulers voluntarily because of training they received and so good
governance was possible.

Ghurye considers that there are 66 kinds of knowledge/Vidya which are

compounded further with the product of needs of people in time and space. For instance, when
foreign invasion got accelerated more importance was given to good governance, economic discipline and
political integration. Kautilya’s Arthshastra didn't speak about ritualism but it admired rule of Law,
trade and Citizen Charter.
 The source of knowledge/Vidya in India comes from different areas
Ayurveda, Logic, Mimansa (solutions), Archaeology, Spiritualism, Natyashastra, Kamasutra, and so on.
These knowledge established unity between different classes and communities in India. Therefore Vidya
transmitted through Gurus promoted uniformity in the thinking, behaviour, pattern and the way of
life of people in a big way and this attributed for the rise of India as a unified nation bridging the
gap between culture, communities, linguistic and regional groups. He considers that teacher – student
relationship was ethical and lifelong that gave rise to the growth of ‘Charnas’. Hence Indian society
should be studied not in terms of caste but Gotra and Charnas that was bringing people belonging to
different origin altogether despite variations in their caste and language.

Thus, Ghurye figured out that culture unites people together injecting
into masses mind, and cultural consciousness. He concluded by saying that cultural disorganisation is a
product of divisive influence of other cultures that came to India. The glorification of non-Sanskritic
language by the ruling classes, loss of political patronage to the custodians of Hindu cultural traditions
led to the great religious divide in India during Islamic rule. This division was further widened during
British regime which encouraged forced conversion giving rise to suspicion and intellectual conflict.

Ghurye standing committed to Sanskritic background, his nationalistic mind

tells us how contemporary India is passing through turmoil due to the breakdown of Indian cultural
traditions. He is empathetic to Dayanand Saraswati who he regarded as Martin Luther King of India
and equally is emphatic to Bankim Chandra who considers nationalism is not a political slogan but it is
also a form of religion.'s

Ghurye was a product of time when India was divided on the basis of
religion. He noticed there is movement in South India in search of separate nationalist identity and
also in north-eastern India where people were going for secessionist movement . Ghurye considers all
these problems could lead to further disintegration of India.

In Ghurye sociology, social reconstruction is highly glorified therefore he can be called as Durkheim of
India who is more committed to society than being committed to sociology.

Major limitations of Ghurye

 He fails to recognise the rise of modern India and the contribution of
Islamic and British rulers. Town planning, architecture, new administration and technology by both
made India altogether different than what it was during Vedic and non-Vedic period. If sociology is
science then sociologists must have to honour the fact rather than ideology. In Ghurye’s sociology
ideology predominates over the fact and that is a tragedy for Indian sociology.

A.R. Desai writes that, studying India from the lens of culture provides us
no space to understand the real India that lives within inequality, diversity, dialectic and exploitation.
Therefore one has to come out of the bondage of Ghurye’s sociology to understand real India and the
challenges and problems associated.

In a nutshell, one can advocate that Ghurye’s sociology is romanticising

India what it is not therefore there is a need for Indian sociology to change its goalpost from book
view to Field Approach.

Marxist sociology (A.R.Desai)

 A.R. Desai on India

Indological approach to the study of Indian society largely speaks about

unity, harmony, integration, ideological equity without paying any importance to diversity of interest
reflected by the people in the cultural history of India. No society is a product of complete
cooperation, integration or conflict.

Theory of India has passed through different stages of development

therefore understanding Indian society cannot wishfully ignore dynamics of the history. When Ghurye
looks into cultural history of India A.R.Desai makes an attempt to understand a political and
economic history of Indian society. He considers that history is no sociology but sociological
understanding of reality cannot be complete without interpretation of historical data.

History explains the conditions in which we lived in whereas Sociology

explains our experience today. Hence Desai makes an attempt to develop a historic sociological model
to understand Indian society. As a Marxian scholar he considers foundation to Indian history is based
upon the modes of production that evolved during different points of time. He divides economic
history of India into three distinctive stages:

 Pre-colonial stage;
 Colonial stage;
 Postcolonial stage.

In these three stages how modes of production is organised and used is

the key to understand social and political relationship among people. He finds out three distinctive
modes of production radiates hierarchical class relationship among the people in the light of which we
can understand intensity of inequality and form of conflict that direct social change in India.
Therefore unlike his teacher Ghurye, AR Desai studies India from historical, dialectical and class
perspective and for this approach he is put into the category of Marxian school of thought.

His book on social background of Indian nationalism talks about the

limitations in Asian mode of production. Revisiting Marxian approach to primitive communism indicates
how in pre-colonial India multiple classes were present, exploitation was inevitable and social inequality
was institutionalised and legitimised.
 In his book “Rural Sociology” and later also in “Sociological Background of
Indian Nationalism”he speaks about the impact of colonialism on trade, agriculture leading to the
formation of new classes and intensification of exploitation. He looks at colonialism from a non-
political perspective indicating that capitalism is expensive and expansive that institutionalised
inequality in India for differential purposes.

Finally in his book "Developmental Planning in India” and “State and

Society in India” he explained how in modern India, public policies are catering to class interest than
addressing to Mass needs. He Indicates that urban development policies had contributed to the rise of
slums and rural development policies have expanded the number of rural poor leading to acceleration
of peasant movement in modern India. This approach of Desai gives him a status of social logical rebel
whose heart bleeds for rural and urban poor.

Desai considers that state and society of modern India has gone into the
hands of dominant class and therefore the exploited masses in modern India, for lack of receiving any
patronage from the state have been subjected to alienation and marginalisation.

Pre-Colonial India

Marx considered that prior to colonialism Indians lived in villages. Every

village had control over specific quantum of agricultural land. Every family irrespective of their caste
were using this land on the basis of their need, technology was simple, family labour was used and
production was made for consumption. Land was not mercantile commodity. Hence, control over
means of production and common use of labour was making in villages egalitarian classes in character.

Conforming to Marxism view British scholars like Sir Henry Maine, Charles
Metcalf, Boden Powell indicate that village communities were ‘Little Republics’ and were self-
sufficient in character. This self-sufficient/self-sustaining community were little affected by change in
the leadership in the larger nation-state. They indicated that rulers may come and go but village
communities stood undiluted forever.

A R Desai collected historical data on village communities in India to

contradict these positions. He finds out that Marx and colonialists failed to understand India
effectively because they had romantic view of India. Marx took into consideration ownership as the
main criteria to understand inequality and exploitation.

However, Desai points out that in case of village India artisans class like
barbers, oilmen, carpenters, ironsmiths, Goldsmiths etc., didn't had any association with land. They
were engaged in manufacturing commodities meant for selective buyers present within the village and
local communities. These selective buyers were belonging to upper class usually operating as village
headman who have the prerogative of allocating village land to different families. These headman were
reserving fertile land for themselves and using the labour of marginalised groups who are not culturally
entitled to claim their rights over village land. These people were mostly untouchables and lower
division of Shudras hence, rural labour were the exploited lot.

In village India multiple classes were present and these class division was
neatly hidden under the blanket of caste but Marx and colonial scholars failed to identify. Hence they
glorified classless and egalitarian character of village community.

A R Desai figured out that it is premature to consider that caste was a

static organisation. Different caste groups internalize the values and develop hierarchical relationships.
Natural calamities leads to distress migration as a result people belonging to higher caste compromise
with the rules regulating diet, rituals and occupation and thus caste gets converted into class. Old
caste get segmented into new class. New affluent class challenged old dominant caste. Village Indian
historical gone from this process of dialectics but nationalists, colonialists and Marxist scholars failed
to understand this.

The early scholars indicated village India was land bound, classless and
egalitarian. These studies ignored the presence of the 3 kinds of cities in traditional Indian society,
such as:

 Cultural cities that developed surrounding the great religious places like Benaras, Rshikesh and
Puri.
 Administrative cities that developed in different parts of the country where the rulers kept
their administrative staffs and Warriors.
 Economic cities where traders, businessmen and manufactures were present.

Therefore, in pre-colonial India a large body of non-agrarian urban classes

were present and these classes did not manifest the integrative relationship ,likewise in rural India
different classes were present and class divisions were determined on the basis of occupation, excess
over agricultural produce and market value of non-agricultural product. Thus conceptualising precolonial
India as an egalitarian social system is a neglect to empirical fact.

Finally Desai draws a distinction between feudalism in Europe and in India.

He considers pre-colonial India as a feudal system because all the rulers who invaded India from 9th
century onwards controlled the political power of the state but until colonialism none of them made
an attempt to evict the indigenous people living in the villages from their right over agricultural land.

Feudal lords in case of Europe first control agricultural land then developed
a political and religious system to safeguard their needs. However, the indigenous farmers in India had
the limited liability towards the political state which was confined to:

 payment of taxes;
 supply of warriors, architects as and when their services were needed by the ruling
classes.

Therefore village committee in India manifest invisible feudalistic character that early scholars failed to
notice. It was feudalism for the reason:

 tax policy was determined by the rulers;

 no measures were taken to improve the condition of agriculture;
 product from agriculture was not sufficient to address to basic needs of local community living
with hunger, malnutrition and forced migration in village India.

Desai considers that condition of rural people in village India and mediaeval
Europe was no different as both manifest attributes of feudalism .European feudalism was monaural
feudalism but in case of India it was cooperative feudalism. In case of monaural feudalism state
legitimises to feudal relationship between lords and the serfs but in case of pre-colonial India landlords
were not present and people dependent on land were non-emotive, culture bound, prefer recreation
and state is not concerned with improving agriculture condition leading to mass poverty and
marginalisation.

In conclusion one can indicate that the Desai looks Indian society from the
standpoint of production to arrive at the conclusion that it is not the exploitative a system of
production rather it can be ignorance of the people that can generate the seeds of exploitation and
inequality in social life. Hence pre-colonial India living in villages was not the manifestation of classless
society.

Colonial India
 Capitalism is expensive and expansive; colonialism in India is a product of
demographic and technological compulsion in Britain. Stakeholders of capitalism fight with each other
in their own country but when had overseas they use common symbols to promote spirit of
nationalism, hence unified.

A few thousand British could control over millions of Indians because the
presence of British nationalism and absence of Indian nationalism. British came to India driven by
economic necessity therefore at first they carried the products meant for the use of targeted body
of buyers to gratify their economic interest and control over power. Technologically developed weapons
were used , indigenous rulers were financed, military support was given to them to fight war against
each other.

Desai writes when indigenous rulers were fighting with each other British
got them to sign various friendship treaties and accept their domination and sovereignty. Those
indigenous rulers who didn't accept the sovereignty of British were alienated or defeated. This way
imperialism was established in India which further promoted capitalism.

Zamindari system was introduced driven by capitalist interest leading to

the rise of absentee landlords, big landlords, sub landlords, sub sub landlords intensifying the
exploitation of rural poors. The growth of commercial cities introduce a standard currency, expansion
of Railways and transport for economic purpose, introduction of education to gratify British interest
gave rise to the emergence of Indian middle class who offered loyalty to British and distinguished
themselves from the rural and urban poors.

Trade monopoly act, salt act, industrial labour act, Corporation act were
introduced by British to systematically demolish cottage industries, manufacturing units and Indian
industries that gave rise to handful of industrialist controlling Indian market emerging as big
bourgeois.T hus polarised class structure developed both in urban India and in rural India, manifesting
the exploitative character of capitalists

Post-Colonial Stage

Desai's reflection on India is not just a critique to public policy rather it

explains the dichotomy between ideology of developmental planning and the results attribute to public
policies. He finds out that green revolution appeared but it did not kill rural poverty, rather it
created petty bourgeois in rural India. He studies on rural cooperative, PRI's indicate how in different
states these modern institutions have offered legitimacy to the traditional dominant caste to control
over modern institution to gratify their political interest.
 Landlessness in rural India is a fountainhead of naxalite movement. Eighty
percent of Indian industries are controlled by 12 families and state has taken interest in those
industries which are left out by private enterprise. State has emerged not as a savior of masses but
as a promoter of big bourgeois. Therefore the dominant caste and dominant class developing
juxtaposition have control over agrarian mode of production and industrial mode of production as a
result trade union movements are getting momentum in modern India.

Thus industries are not a solution to poverty, Green Revolution is not a

solution to backwardness of rural community. The irony of India is that it follows socialist policies
with commitment to protect capitalist interest because these capitalists are present everywhere in
the form of dominant caste, in the form of upper-class, powerholders and in the form of traders in
India. Therefore modern India is not structurally different from Colonial India because intensity of
inequality and marginalisation of masses are identical in both the conditions.

Criticism Of A.R. Desai

Desai expects that peoples movement in India can drive Indian society
truly in the direction of socialism through the glorification of people's consciousness. His approach is
considered as stereotypical by S.C Dubey who in his book “community development” indicates that
how community program development have transformed the structure of agrarian economy in Adilabad
district of Andhra Pradesh rejecting AR Desai’s understanding of India. MN Srinivas indicated that
Naxalite movement started in West Bengal when communist government was in power. He considers
that there is no guarantee if socialist group came to power they can bring in an egalitarian society as
suggested by A R Desai.

KL Krishna indicates the development planning in India is studied by

Sociologists from ideological perspective wherein they select their field research that can simply fit
into their ideology. To its contrast economists goes for a larger sample and their studies indicate in
which area policies are largely successful, partially successful and unsuccessful. Thus an economist tries
to find out the reasons behind the failure or success of developmental programmes. Therefore
sociological analysis of rural development should be supplementaries to analysis done by economists.

MS Gore in his book “Public Policies and Social Development” writes that
cooperative movements have been highly successful in Maharashtra and Karnataka that these
movements are yet to take a start in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and certain pockets of Uttar Pradesh.
 Likewise community development programmes have achieved differential results in various parts of the
country. Thus Desai’s study of postcolonial India is not driven by empirical merit.

Despite these limitations one can still be empathetic to Desai who rebelled
against Oriental understanding of India, Nationalistic understanding of India and Indological
understanding of Indian to advocate what looks so romantic from outside is so greatly different in
reality. It is true that he studied India from the standpoint of modes of production ignoring other
important factors like ideology, power, culture, education. But he was the first sociologist who didn't
mechanically applied Marxian model to understand the economic history of Indian society. Therefore
rightly Yogendra Singh considers that sociology of A R Desai is foundation to modern sociology of
India.

Structural functionalism (MN Srinivas)

MN Srinivas was born in an orthodox Brahmin family he was socialised in

the basics of Brahminic values. He had the opportunity of learning sociology from GS Ghurye, AR Radcliffe
Brown. GS Ghurye stimulated Srinivas to study a ritual patterns of Coorgs of Mysore and compare that
with the death rituals of Egyptian tribe so as to strike out the similarity between the two in order to
understand cultural diffusion. Srinivas found this study as the wastage of time, nonsensical and
intellectually non-illuminative. Therefore he went for a second Ph.D. at Oxford University. He changed his
approach there, a diffusionist in Srinivas died and a structural functionalist was born under the influence
of AR Brown.

A structural functionalist never takes truth for granted, truth happens in

social context that needs to be studied through empirical observation therefore sociology must have to
liberate itself from the book view approach(textual) and must have to go for fieldwork and contextual
analysis.

Structural functionalists make a point to go for field situation and collect

data on the basis of what you see there. There is no need for glorification/exaggeration. It is called
structural functional approach as it never considers anything so simple to understand. There are caste
structures, ritual structures, political structures and each of these structures both influence others and
gets influenced itself. Structures can be Functional or Dysfunctional and Structuralists never takes into
consideration their personal ideologies while studying these social structures so as to put forward the
studies done from a value neutral perspective. MN Srinivas is the founder of the structural functional
approach in India.

Srinivas’s sociology emphasises on the study of social structure of caste,

village, family and society. In his study of caste, he makes a distinction between both book view of caste
and empirical view. He emphasises on Varna system and also looks into division of caste, subdivisions and
sub sub divisions present within caste. He considers that caste is an empirical reality, hence in every
village one can notice around 20 to 25 caste groups present and within every caste groups there are
present sub caste and sub sub caste who are engaged in cooperation, competition and conflict with each
other.

Citing the case of Vishvakarma and Valmiki Brahmin of Karnataka indicates

that new caste groups are born out of the decline of old caste groups therefore caste is a subject of
both fission and fusion. He rejects outrightly Varna view of caste founded by colonial rulers and
stereotyped Brahminic models founded by Louis Dumont. He conceptualised that the structure of caste
must be studied from Ritual Perspective and Secular Perspective.

Changing a ritual position of the caste has taken through Buddhism,

Jainism, Bhakti movement, Swami Narayanan Guru Dharam Palipana (SNDP) and Satya Shodak Samaj. He
further considers that ritual mobility in contemporary times is taking place through Sanskritisation. He
considers Sanskritisation becomes easier for the lower caste when they improve their position in secular
sphere that is by getting education, power and wealth. Citing the example of Mahisya of Bengal,
Kayasthas of Bihar, Chauhan Rajputs of UP, Yadav of western UP etc.

Citing the case of Nair of Kerala he indicates that how this caste group
receiving patronage from rulers, joining Army, participating in trade, formulating caste association and
campaigning could successfully improve their positions and secular sphere and used this domination as a
foundation for ritual mobility. Through this empirical data he rejected the idea that caste is a hierarchical
system where mobility is not possible, produces closed society. Srinivas considers that caste is dynamic
throughout Indian history. Different caste groups of experience both upward and downward mobility that
needs to be asserted by empirical observation.

Reflecting on the rise of dominant caste during 1960s and 70s Srinivas
indicated that land reform systems, PRI's offered foundation to non-Brahminis, non-Dalit, middle caste in
India to get unified. Democratic politics being a game of numbers gave them a chance for caste
consolidation as a result in different pockets of the country like Reddy’s in AP, Yadav's and Bhumiars in
Bihar and UP,Gujjars in Rajasthan, non-Brahminic caste in Tamil Nadu, Jats in Haryana and many more
got unified together. Either they formulated their own political party or the evolved into provincial
leaders of regional and national political parties, seized power and formulated public policies to benefit
their own caste groups thereby giving a wider coverage to the policy of reservation.

His understanding of India covers the following issues:

 Structure of caste,
 structure of social change,
 structure of Indian villages,
 structure of Indian joint family,
 dynamic nature of caste,
 status of women and dowry.

Srinivas looks into the caste system giving importance to 2 important

criteria i.e. ‘Ritual Criteria’ and ‘Secular Criteria’. Under ritual criteria he puts in aspects like food,
manner, speech, practices, birth, dieties, personal conduct and language. Under the secular criteria he
takes into consideration education, wealth and power.
 He says that caste in the past was giving importance to ritual criteria but with the advent of
foreign invaders the ritual criteria were not given so much importance. When Brahmins declined the
offer of Muslim rulers to work in their courts there was one class which joined the Muslim court i.e.
Kayasthas and they were able to enjoy higher status. In Gujarat Nooniyas who were engaged in salt
production got hired by the British to make salt fitter for guns during the Second World War ,. The
British provided them huge amount of money and this led to the rise in their status in their villages
and thereby they started enjoying higher power than the Brahmins.

In the past Brahmins enjoyed immense status and were considered ‘Lords
of power’ . But in contemporary India secular criteria had started dominating the ritual criteria.
Srinivas says, caste which was a static institution in the past is now a dynamic institution. In India
with the increase in secular criteria people belonging to lower caste are going in a big way to improve
and consolidate their position in ritualistic sphere also by making use of their dominant position in
secular criteria.

Srinivas, being a structural functionalist mainly uses ‘field study approach’

to study Indian society. He writes that it is very difficult for a sociologist to remain value neutral
when he's studying his own society i.e. objectivity is very wise to hear but difficult implement.

Karl Marx tells that India is a closed society because people living in
villages were not prepared to change their mind and that land is controlled by village community and
one can go for agriculture irrespective of their caste. He further says that village is a reality and caste
is a myth. Louis Dumont tells that caste is a matter of fact and village is a myth, he says that
village is a contracted identity and caste is a real identity. Srinivas points out caste is a matter of
fact as well as village i.e. to study India one needs to take both caste and village into consideration.

Srinivas uses three concept to understand social structure of Indian society:

 Sanskritisation;
 westernisation;
 dominant caste.
 Modernisation is a value loaded concept. Modern means good, dynamic and
innovative whereas traditional means Orthodox, bad, rigid. In India, tradition and modernity are not
opposite to each other, they are complementary to each other. He says that “more caste is
becoming weaker in India the more it is becoming stronger” because secular role of caste is more
important today just like ritual role which was important in the past.

In his book “20th century: New Avtar of caste” he gives a list of secular
role of caste indicating that caste cannot die out because it performs a series of social functions
today that can't be undertaken by any alternate institution.

Srinivas on social structure of village

Marx considers that Indian villages self-sufficient because all members of

the village have land as their primary modes of production. Colonial scholars considers that village India
suffered from myopic culture, hereditary of occupation, name, residence and culture in addition to
pessimistic values, lack of innovation, non-exposure to market, absence of individualism resulting into a
community which was self –perpetual and continuous. Louis Dumont considers that village is a
territorial space, it does not carry any social and cultural significance therefore Indian society must be
studied from the standpoint of caste and not village. Srinivas rejects to both the positions outrightly
indicating that both Marx and colonial scholars had romantic understanding of villages because there
assumption of India was greatly driven by the book view.

No village manifest unity in totality and is not perpetual in character. Srinivas indicates that village
solidarity is a fact because:

 people belonging to a particular village exhibit village exogamy,

 cutting across their caste line the participate in village festivals,
 voluntarily they come together against external aggression,
 servicing caste groups regularly comes from adjoining villages for work which results into
functional coordination.
 People carry their family identity, caste identity and village identity along
with your name therefore village is not a geographical space, it is a social and cultural universe
for man in India from where he gets his identity. He lives with this identity all through his
life. Rejecting Louis Dumont he writes that caste divided but village united the people. Thus
one cannot understand Indian without understanding the dynamic nature of Indian village.

AR Desai on Structure of joint family

Srinivas rejects outrightly the Indologists viewpoint that joint family

injected a value of corporate existence, ritualism, fraternity and cooperation limiting the
materialistic orientation of man in India. He rejects the modern viewpoint that joint family in
India is replaced by nuclear family under the impact of industry and urbanisation. He makes a
distinction between joint family and joint household. In search of occupation people are leaving
their traditional joint family and living in urban centres. These urban family mostly consist of
husband, wife and their unmarried children.

AR Desai considers that rise of nuclear family in urban centres of the

country he the indication of breakdown of feudalism and the rise of capitalism. Rejecting to
that Srinivas indicate that in the so-called nuclear family the jointness is strongly present. It
is evident from the fact that at the time of childbirth, elderly members are invited either
from wife’s side or husband’s side ,all important decisions are taken by the head of the nuclear
family in consultation with the members of the joint family. This indicates that India has gone
for residential split hence joint household is breaking down but not the spirit of jointness. This
observation is subsequently taken by AM Shah, Alan Rose, MS Gore, J Sharma when they
study the dynamic nature of joint family system in India.

Srinivas on Social structure

 Srinivas consider the social change in India is not just technological and
institutional rather it is value centric. 150 years of British rule in India has exposed us to
modern technologies, railways, printing press, radios & television, telephone. All these
embodiments of modernity have responded to the demands of traditional culture efficiently.
TVs and radios do have secular and sacred uses in India, newspaper is glorifying caste-based
marriages, caste association. In addition to that temples are becoming a place for collective
gathering where politics and economics are discussed. Hence social change in India establishing a
balance between ritualistic orientation and secular success. Therefore India is establishing a
balance between tradition and modernity than simply following the European model of
modernity.

In conclusion it can advocated that MN Srinivas took Indian sociology away

from the world of speculation, judgemental orientation, Indological and ideological attachment
to the world of facts where people speak for themselves. His commitment to the field study
method took researchers close to the subject of research. It made the researchers more
passionate/patient observer to the empirical fact happening around them.

Under intellectual leadership in large body of young sociologist from 1960s

to 1980s ,field studies were conducted in different parts of the country which correspondingly
studied the changing nature of caste, kinship and religion. Many of them studied the impact of
public policies (rural development programmes and policies, population policies, urban
development policies) and came forward with vibrant information on social change in India.
Therefore Srinivas’s sociology gave a new dimension to sociology of India both in terms of
methodology and in terms of content. Therefore David Mandel Baum rightly points out that it
is difficult imagine Indian sociology without Srinivas because he offered Indian sociology the
status in 20 years that European sociologist have obtained in centuries by standing committed
to his structure functional approach.

Srinivas never gave sociology of India big theories nor did he try European
theories on Indian society. Rather a developmental race theories like Sanskritisation,
Westernisation, dominant caste, AGJR(Ahir,Gujjar,Jat,Rajput),BIMARU to understand social,
cultural and economic dynamics of Indian society.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF POWER(a Synopsys)

1) PLURALISM
Based on functionalism with emphasis on equilibrium, stability and gradual change,
conservative perspective.
Key Pluralists: Arnold Rose, Peter Bentley, Talcott Parsons, Neil Smelser

Key features:
societal power is decentralized, widely shared, diffuse and fragmented,
deriving from many sources, i.e. power pie divided into many pieces
society consists of many diverse groups and associations (e.g. business, labour,
professional, religious, etc…) and constitutes a conglomeration of dissimilar
and often conflicting interests, no none of which plays a singularly dominant
role, through a process of democratic competition the nature and direction of
society are determined
society is made up of a multitude of conflicting interest groups balanced by the
state, groups are equally influential in their impact on government policy and
major institutions
assumption of a natural balance of power among various groups which is
preserved through bargaining and compromise, win some and lose some, give
and take, and thus equilibrium is reached in group struggle
existence of shared acceptance of basic political framework, i.e. consensus of
values, democratic traditions, procedures & principles
economic and governmental institutions are separate not overlapping power
sources
tension between necessity for strong, modernizing, central coordinator on one
hand and a relatively equal distribution of social powers on other reflects cross-
pulls of two allegedly functional pre-requisites – need of autonomy and need of
integration
Role of the state
Society is a struggle of competing groups within an arena refereed by the state
State represents institutionalized power and authority
State is supreme guardian of representative democracy in modern society, from
tension paves way for political competition and pluralist democracy
State serves neither its own interests nor those of any single group or class
State can act as bargaining agent or mediator
Primary task of state is to balance interests of a multitude of competing groups,
represents interests of society as a whole, coordinating the other major
institutions OR
Primary function is to promote harmony within system to secure equilibrium
and order OR
Or to police conflicts of interest
From these roles, state is able to institutionalize its rule and maintain order in
society
Separation of governmental power: plurality of competing governmental
agencies, divisions and branches, existence of political parties, thus
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

individuals/groups can have various points of access to decision-makers

Role/nature of the individual and of groups
Individuals with common interests exert influence on decision-makers by
collective action thus average citizens can have meaningful input into decision-
making
Political power is distributed over as many citizens working through their
associations as want to take responsibility for power, through the voluntary
association the ordinary citizen can acquire as much as power in the
community or nation as their free time, ability and inclinations permit them
(Arnold Rose)
Political process is made up of social groups and policy outcomes are result of
group process, each group being autonomous and democratic
Potential groups: people who have shared attitudes, unorganized could
organize
Cross cutting group membership: overlapping membership of groups, one
individual may have many memberships and each group may have conflicting
views on one issue, thus never have one all powerful group agreeing on all
issues
In US, pluralism is popular; consider slogans of “government of, by and for the people”,
“equality before the law” and “separation of power”

ELITE PLURALISM
Seymour Martin Lipset, Robert Dalh’s polyarchy, or democratic Elitism or strategic
Elites
Fuses reality of Elite rule and democratic principles
Meaning of democracy is changed from one of direct popular rule to that of
competition between and within Elites to control the state
Elites are not single integrated group, multiple centers of political power
Assumption of balance
Assumption that minority will have influence on Elite
Distrusts of mass participation in politics
CRITIQUE
Pertains to voluntary associations, class bias of interest group activity, inequality of
power resources, role of the state, consensus of political values, and democracy
Rationale for status quo, defense of current US political system, parochial
focus, not widely applicable – just to US
Actual versus perceived role of voluntary associations, simply another level of
bureaucracy
US society is not one of joiners, few are members of voluntary associations,
usually the better educated, wealthier and higher social status
Those who are members of voluntary associations, the groups are social,
cultural, youth, church or other whose primary interests are not political, and
many of these groups lack any democratic control by ran an file and are
bureaucratically structured which prevents direct individual participation in
decision-making
Voluntary associations are asymmetrical in the amount of power they wield per
member, e.g. union versus business association
Assumption that there is a balance of power among various groups, from
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

religious groups to business groups, and pervasiveness of economic institutions

ignored, balance of power as it is favors some and not others
State is not neutral mediator, rules change, agenda setting occurs
Assumption of widespread agreement on rules of the game, whose rules and
who agrees, what of those who oppose
Modern version of democracy or perversion of democracy in complex, modern
industrialized societies
No concern for minimal participation of masses
Focus is governmental, public and not including private sector politics, what of
Elites in educational sector, corporate sector, communication sector, labour
sector, thus picture of societal power is limited
Pluralists are preoccupied with analyzing formal political institutions, confuses
how politics is supposed to work and how it actually works under capitalism

2) ELITE THEORY
Societal power is concentrated in elite groups who control resources of key social
institutions and are not accountable to the masses, origins of societal power lie in
control of social organizations, regardless of how (un)democratic a society
maybe, Elites hold the bulk of power; use all and any means to retain power,
power becomes end in itself.

Debated issues among Elite theorists

Initially are all societies stratified?
Is power used for society’s benefit and welfare or for personal gain?
Necessary for society or not?
Elites closed and cohesive units or open and diverse?
One or more ruling Elites?
What are the characteristics and patterns of Elites?
Are Elites and powerful persons the same?

CLASSIC ELITE THEORY (aristocratic version)

Based on two ideas:
1) Fundamental psychological difference sets Elites apart from masses, natural process,
having personal resources such as intelligence, cunning or skill, and masses are apathetic,
incompetent and unable to govern themselves OR
2) Unavoidable product of modern social organization such that organizational
complexity necessitates a leader, i.e. functionally necessary, power lies in positions of
authority in key political and economic institutions
Pareto
Stressed the psychological and irrational aspects of Elites, i.e. psychological
and intellectual superiority
Elites are the highest achievers essentially in any and all areas of intelligence,
character, skill, capacity, etc…
Have two types of Elites - governing Elites and non-governing Elites who
govern by means of coercion or cunning
Developed fundamental idea of circulation of Elites comprised of two
processes – process in which individuals circulate between elite and nonelite,
and process in which a whole elite is replaced by a new one
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Mosca
Stressed the sociological, organizational and personal characteristics
Elites are an organized minority
The ruling/political class includes the ruling Elite and sub-Elite (technocrats,
managers, civil servants)
Masses are not organized
Personal characteristics include the intellectual, material and moral superiority
which is highly esteemed and very influential in the society in which they live
Dominant interests of society which are the social and political forces, i.e.
prevailing ideas and institutions of the time, become reflected in the ruling
class and thus they dominate the structures and values
Believed that all societies are divided into two groups, the ruling class and the
class that is ruled and thus argued for the universal necessity and inevitability
of class rule.

Michels: Iron law of oligarchy

Tendency for most social and political organizations to be run by a few
individuals who make most of the decisions
Oligarchy arises out of complexity and size of organization – the organizational
form - where there is a delegation of power in terms of specialized expertise
initially for efficiency and stability but transformed into self-serving
conservative Elite
Social organization and division of labour are key variables
Have combination of apathy, insufficient time, lack of expertise and need for
guidance of the masses and the natural greed for power of the Elites
Elites have resources of information and control its flow, credibility and
prestige and cohesive organization
Three basic principles of Elite formulation that take place within bureaucratic
structure of political organization – the need for specialized staff, facilities, and
above all leaders; the utilization of such specialized facilities by leaders within
these organizations; and, the psychological attributes of the leaders (e.g.
charisma)
Believed all organizations to be elitist, the organizational form is basis for
conservatism and this conservatism is inevitable outcome of power attained
through political organization

WEBER'S THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY (not per say a theory of power or political

sociology but relevancy is clear)
Having arrived at the conclusion that economic relations, i.e. class relations
based on wealth and income, lie at the source of power and politics, Weber
focused on manifestation of class power exercized through the state
Assigns a quasi-autonomous role to the state in which state bureaucrats appear
to be serving their own interests and the bureaucracy appears to be a power
unto itself
Bureaucracies are skilled bodies of specialists and experts, a rational form of
organization organized on the basis of specific functions, not on basis of
authority of personalities and traditions, a social machine with individuals as
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

depersonalized objects
With modernization of society and greater legal-rational authority, there is
increasing professionalization of leadership, power becomes concentrated in
bureaucracies which maintain control over vast human, material and
intellectual resources – they have monopoly of expertise and have capacity to
carry out or not policies of political leaders (policy administration)
Bureaucracies are stable but intransigent with a remote and unanswerable
bureaucratic elite, thus with citizens removed from control of and input into
political decision-making
Question is determining who controls and directs the complex bureaucratic
machine
Does not believe bureaucracy to be an autonomous power unto itself (as
Michels does) but rather it is a tool or instrument of power, argues bureaucracy
and power are the manifestations of the real material forces that dominate
social-economic structure of modern society, to give primacy to analytic
strength of these concepts is to study surface phenomena

CONTEMPORARY ELITE THEORY

Power Elite theory aka Radical Power Elite theoty - C.W. Mills
Societal power rests in control of key societal institutions - corporation,
executive branch of government and Pentagon in US, i.e. the economy, the
state and the military
Elites not inevitable or natural, nor that masses are incompetent, apathetic or
untrustworthy, masses are manipulated and exploited and kept in a state of
ignorance and thus powerless by Elites who rule in own interest, this accounts
for non-participation
Elites are from upper class and perpetuate themselves through selective
recruitment and socialization to Elite values

Governing Class model - W. Domhoff

Class hegemony framework combining Power Elite theory and Class theory,
reconceptualizes the power Elite in class terms
Argues in US there is a corporate upper class that owns major business assets
and controls the bulk of wealth, including major banks, corporations; major
newspapers, radio, television and other mass media; elite universities;
foundations; important advisory groups and organizations e.g. Council of
Foreign Relations and Committee for Economic Development; executive
branch of government, cabinet, judiciary, military and the regulatory agencies
This class by virtue of its economic power, also controls and influences
important departments and agencies of the state and in this way becomes a
governing class – the American business aristocracy
CRITIQUE Concerns Elite inevitability, cohesiveness and Elite-mass relations
Does there maybe exist an iron law of democracy instead due to persistence off
democratic ideals & tendencies
Consider how do organizations inhibit authority not just democracy
Idea of coalitions, power changing moment to moment, issue to issue
Increased specialization and complexity so different Elite groups, and several
classes not just two
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Accountability functions of electoral politics and public opinion ignored

Altruistic motives do exist
Other groups benefit from Elites’ actions
As social class rises apathy decreases
3) MARXISM - CLASSIC MARXIST THEORY
Society is ruled by those who control the means of production – the economic system
Key features:
Marx
Class basis of politics is the major determinant of political phenomena, must
ask which class controls and dominates the state
Reality is world of human effort – WORK, people realize themselves through
work and around this productive process history unfolds
Dynamics of society originate in its economic activity which is essentially the
production of material life – food, clothing, shelter - and culture arises out of
this process of economic activity
Foundation or basis of society is the economy from which the legal, political,
religious, cultural and educational institutions derive; i.e. societies in different
stages of developments create different productive systems which are the
economic institutions which in turn shape general nature of beliefs and
practices in all areas of social life including political organization
A form of economic determinism
Obedience of all classes is found not on coercion but on virtual dependence of
working class on capitalist class for subsistence and false consciousness
Power flows from economic relations, who rules, those who control the
economic resources, societal power is a product of economic forces, Political
power is not centered in the state but in the nature of the class relations, who
owns and controls the means of production
Economic dominance is translated into power in all other societal realms,
especially the state, thus dominant economic class is ruling political class
Since classes are political groups, political conflict is class conflict

Gramsci
Focused on the ideological apparatuses of the capitalist state
Introduced concept of cultural ideological hegemony – the ruling class controls
and shapes the ideas and hence consciousness of the masses, the dominant class
uses its political, moral and intellectual leadership to establish its view of the
world as all inclusive and universal, and to shape the interests and needs of
subordinate groups
The ideological hegemony of the ruling class operates through the state itself
Role/Functions of the state
Perpetuation and legitimation of the social class system:
- Maintaining and reproducing the capitalist system and its class relations
- Protecting system of property relations
- Propagating dominant values in schools, media and other social
institutions, fostering dominant ideology
Accumulation function
- Guaranteeing the conditions for capital production and accumulation
- Intervening directly in this process through tax collection & spending
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

- Financing economic growth

MARXISM - CONTEMPORARY MARXIST THEORIES

Althusser
Structural Marxist – combines Marxism which relies on social & historical
analysis with structuralism which relies on ahistorical and asocial analysis
Does this by distinguishing between ideologies (historical/social) and ideology
(structural): IDEOLOGIES are specific, historical and differing, there are
various ideologies i.e. Christian, democratic, feminist, Marxist ideologies;
IDEOLOGY is structural and eternal and has no history since ideology is part
of the superstructure, (links structure of ideology to the idea of the unconscious
from Freud and Lacan); because ideology is a structure its contents will vary
but its form remains the same; ideology is a representation of the imaginary
relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence, ideology
doesn’t represent the real world per se but human beings’ relation to that real
world or to their perceptions of the real conditions of existence
Expands analysis of the base-superstructure relationship to include such other
superstructural institutions as the cultural, religious, educational, legal and
family
As hegemony of ruling class in these spheres becomes critical for its control
over the dominated classes, and society in general, the class struggle takes on a
tri-level character consisting of economic, political and ideological levels
State is a kind of governmental formation that arises with capitalism, i.e. a state
is determined by the capitalist mode of production and formed to protect its
interests
Identifies two major mechanisms for insuring that people within a state behave
according to the rules: 1) repressive states apparatuses (RSA), e.g. police,
armed forces, prisons (criminal justice and prison systems); 2) ideological
state apparatuses (ISA), e.g. schools, religions, family, legal systems, politics,
cultural activities such as arts and sports, system of mass communication,
which are institutions which generate ideologies (systems of ideas and values)
which we as individuals and groups then internalize

Poulantzas - STRUCTURALISM
Emphasis is on the structural imperatives of the capitalist system as they affect
the state and its relative autonomy, emphasized ideological factors
Focus on structural constraints of the capitalist system that set limits to the
state’s autonomy and force it to work within the framework of an order that
yields results invariably favourable to the dominant capitalist class
Argues that it is by virtue of the system of production itself in capitalist society
that the state becomes a capitalist state even in the absence of direct control of
the state apparatus by capitalists
The direct participation of members of the ruling class in the state apparatus is
the effect, not the cause
Structure of political and economic institutions in capitalist society constrain
the political Elite so that it serves those interests regardless of direct/indirect
role of business in state affairs, i.e. mechanisms are built into the modern
capitalist political economy
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Viability of state dependent on healthy economy, state leaders must promote

interests of big business
Belief that capitalist class is internally divided and thus state protects capitalist
interests in general, i.e. on behalf of all capitalists and thus state is autonomous

Miliband - INSTRUMENTALISM
Simplistically and initiallly government serves interests of capitalist class
The idea is that the state is an instrument of the capitalist class as a whole and
this class contains fractions thus it has relative autonomy from one fraction
Emphasis is on the direct and indirect control of the state by the dominant
capitalist class
Focuses on the special relationship between the state and the capitalist class,
and the mechanisms of control of the state by this class that, de facto, transform
the state into a capitalist state
Capitalists do not govern, i.e. do not occupy political offices, but they rule by
controlling political officials and institutions, directly through manipulation of
state policies or indirectly through exercise of pressure on state
Social and strategic ties among corporate and government leaders is key,
between individuals occupying positions of power in different institutional
spheres

NOTE: There is a convergence of 2 positions where the state is both controlled

by and at the same time relatively autonomous from various fractions of the
capitalist class in order to perform its functions in advancing the interests of the
capitalist class as a whole, and maintain its legitimacy over society

Offe (comes from Hegelian-Maxist tradition of the Frankfurt School, once a

student of Jurgen Habermas, similar to Poulantzas)
Explains state through economic role
Emphasis on state’s necessity for capital accumulation involving extraction of
surplus and the reproduction of capitalist relations
Focuses on internal mechanisms of the state in terms of its dependence on
capital accumulation which is vital for its survival
Introduced concept of selective mechanisms: negative selection - selective
mechanisms that systematically exclude anti-capitalist interests from state
activity; positive selection - from the range of remaining alternatives, the
policy which is in the interests of capital as a whole is selected over policies
serving the parochial interests of specific capitalist groups; disguising
selection – the institutions of the state must somehow maintain the appearance
of class neutrality while at the same time effectively excluding anti-capitalist
alternatives
Mechanism are contradictory in nature and present problems for state in
carrying out its dual role of maintaining accumulation and legitimation, results
in crisis of legitimation
4) REALISM - Machiavelli & Hobbes: “end justifies the means”, “might makes right”
Politics is the way it is
It is autonomous - separate from moral or other nonpolitical struggles
National interests of nation-states are what is key and from which there are
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

struggles with other nation-states vying for power

Belief in absolute power of the state, single minded pursuit of power, national
security and interest

Six principles
1. Politics and society are governed by objective laws that have their roots in
human nature (determinism & darwinism)
2. Political realism is defined in terms of interest with interest being defined
in terms of power, not concerned with motives and ideological preferences
(not psychology or emotions)
3. Realm of moral principles and ethics is separate from realm of politics
4. Moral aspirations of nation are not identical to moral laws which govern
universe, e.g. foreign policy based on national interest not moral interest
5. Objectivity

Neorealists focus more on international relations and foreign policy

CRITIQUE
Reductionist
Separating ethics from politics not possible
Not objective
5) CORPORATISM (post-Pluralism – reformulation of the pluralist problematic; more
sophisticated form of Elite Pluralism; within capitalism, aka as Keynesian corporatism,
see it in Europe more than US)
Strong central state, state is the supreme organ responsible for organizing and
leading society under its own directives
Representing the common good, state is guardian of order and moral authority
then can bring about class harmony and national unity
State takes on responsibility of leading the nation by taking an active role in
major institutions of society including the economy, i.e. direct intervention
A partnership/alliance between state/government, business/corporations and
union/organized labor creating political stability, reciprocal relationships, i.e.
agreement between the state, capitalists (management) and trade unionists
(workers) to guarantee high levels of employment, capital investment and
accumulation, and citizen consumption
Corporatist state included aims of economic redistribution and extension of
citizenship rights, reducing levels of unemployment and inflation in order to
bring workers into the mainstream of the capitalist system
Organized interests are legitimate
State interventions are acceptable as long as they fall within capitalist
principles

Two types:
state (top down) corporatism which is closer to elitism
societal (bottom up) corporatism which is closer to pluralism
CRITIQUES
Designed to protect interests of monopoly capital
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Results in consolidation of capitalist class power since state is controlled by

capitalist class
Can give rise to authoritarian states in crisis ridden states, and ultimately
providing material base for emergence of fascism in response to economic and
political crises of advanced capitalism, .e.g Germany & Italy
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Introduction

As I have tried to indicate, the concept of the State in modern, industrialized,

societies is crucial to an understanding of the nature and distribution of power in
society, if only because it plays such a large, over-bearing, part in our lives. The
State in Britain, for example, impinges on our behaviour, as individuals, in numerous
ways:

It regulates social relationships (laws)

It specifies legal forms of contractual relationships (marriage, etc.)

It levies taxes.

It makes education a legal requirement between 5 and 16.

It empowers a range of people (from Civil servants to social workers, Court officials,
the police, doctors and so forth) with the ability to legally interfere in the way in which
we behave.

It provides a range of services (paid for through taxation), such as hospitals, schools,
local services and so forth.

It employs hundreds of thousands of people - both directly (in the form of civil
servants, the police, the armed forces, politicians) and indirectly, through the vast
range of contracts that it issues...

Although I have referred to the State as "it", it is clear that the State is not a thing, but
a set of inter-locking institutional relationships and arrangements - in this sense, it is
a concept that can be applied to a form of (structural) social relationships. The State
is not simply "the government" or the "monarchy" or the civil service but, on the
contrary, it is something created out of the relationship between such institutions in
society.

Given that the State does play such an important part in social life, it follows that any
group or class (or even, in some instances, an individual) that can control the various
agencies of the State is potentially very powerful in political, economic and
ideological terms. For this reason, therefore, we have now got to turn towards an
understanding of various theories concerning the nature and distribution of power in
any society that make particular reference to the role of the State...
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Theories of Power

What I propose to do in the following section is offer a broad outline of various

theories of power distribution along the following lines:

1. Pluralist theories of power.

In this respect, power is seen to be held by a variety of groups in society (some of

which are more powerful than others), who compete with each other. Since no one
group or class is able to dominate all other groups (because of checks and balances
built into a democratic system of government), a "plurality" of competing interest
groups, political parties and so forth is seen to characterize democratic societies.

A variant on this theme ("Elite Pluralism") will also be considered, since this theory
attempts to account for the fact that, as noted above, some groups are potentially
more powerful than others in society.

2. Elite Theory.

This theory involves the idea that rather than there being a simple plurality of
competing groups in society, there are instead a series of competing elites - powerful
groups who are able to impose their will upon the rest of society. Two basic forms of
elite theory will be considered:

a. The theory of "circulating elites" (a conservative form of theorizing associated with

writers such as Mosca and Pareto).

b. Power Elite theory (a more radical form of theorizing developed by and associated
with, C.Wright Mills).

3. Ruling Class Theory.

This is a Marxist form of theorizing which argues that power is fundamentally lodged
with the owners and controllers of economic production (the bourgeoisie). Political
power is seen to derive from economic ownership and, in this respect, we can
identify a Ruling Class which not only controls the means of production, distribution
and exchange in capitalist society but which also dominates and controls the
institutions of political power. Again, two main forms of Marxism will be considered:

a. Instrumental Marxism:

Primarily associated with the work of Ralph Milliband ("The State In Capitalist
Society"), this form of Marxism attempts to demonstrate empirically the nature of
Ruling Class domination in society.

b. "Structuralist" Marxism:

Primarily associated with the work of writers such as Poulantzas ("Classes In

Contemporary Capitalism") and Althusser, this variant of Marxism concentrates more
upon the structural arrangements of capitalist society, attempting to show how a
Ruling Class is able to dominate the rest of society economically, politically and
ideologically without the need for its members to personally oversee the workings of
the State.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

In addition, I will also make reference to the work of Parsons (Functionalist theories
of power), Weber (a non-Marxist Conflict theory of power) and Gramsci (a neo-
Marxist theory of power).

Summarize the basic differences between Pluralist and Marxist theories of

power distribution.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Power and the State.

Pluralist theories.

Pluralist writers (such a Dahl "Who Governs?" 1961), whilst sharing a number of
theoretical similarities with functionalists such as Parsons, can generally be
differentiated from functionalism on the basis of three main ideas:

1. The nature of power:

Like Weber, pluralist writers tend to theorize power in terms of what is called a "zero-
sum" or "constant-sum" capacity. That is, the amount of power in any society is seen
to be relatively fixed ("constant"). For any group to accumulate power, it has to do so
at the expense of another social group (hence the idea of a "zero-sum" totality of
power).

For example, within the classroom, a teacher has more power than her students.
However, if her students decide that they are going to disobey their teacher (shout,
scream, run riot and so forth) and the teacher is unable to stop them, then here we
have evidence for the idea of a "constant sum" theory of power.

Whilst the teacher controls her class, she has power and they do not. If her class
decides that they are going to take control, then they have power and the teacher
does not (since the students have effectively taken the power that was once
exercised by their teacher.

In this situation, what options does the teacher have in order to take-back the power
her students have taken from her?

For example, what other sources of power can a teacher call upon when control of
her classroom breaks down?

2. Value consensus:

Again, like Conflict theorists, pluralist writers argue that there does not have to be a
value consensus in any society. As societies become larger, they become more-
differentiated and such differentiation is expressed in terms of sectional interests -
groups of people organized around a set of interests, particular to that group, which
they seek to advance at the expense of other sectional interest groups.

Whilst various divisions in society clearly exist along class, age, gender, religious and
ethnic lines, no one division is seen to dominate an individual's life. Thus, pluralists
tend to reject the Marxist notion that class is the most significant social attribute of
the individual, whilst also rejecting the functionalist argument that such sectional
conflicts are relatively unimportant in the explanation of the distribution and theorising
of power relationships.

3. The State:

For pluralist writers, the State is considered to be a form of "honest broker" between
the various sectional interests that exist in society. In this respect, the State is seen
to mediate between various interests, promoting compromise between competing
groups where possible and generally attempting to take a "long-term" view of social
development.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

For example, sectional interests (such as road builders) have to be balanced

between sectional interests promoting rail and air development and these, in turn,
may have to be balanced against sectional interests promoting environmental
conservation and so forth.

Before we turn to look at what is usually termed "Classical Pluralist" theory (as
opposed to "Elite Pluralism" - not to be confused with the similar-sounding "Elite
Theory"), it might be useful to look, by way of comparison, at Talcott Parsons'
functionalist theory of power.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Parsonian Functionalism and Power.

There are two main elements to Parsons' view of power:

1. The idea, contrary to Weber and Pluralism generally, that power should be
conceived in "variable-sum" terms. That is, the idea that power levels can vary within
any society (it can increase or decrease) since, as Parsons argues, power is
something "possessed by society as a whole".

2. Power is viewed as a social resource, much like any other resource in society (for
example, the number of people available for work, the provision of raw materials for
economic production, the numbers of people being born and dying are all, in their
different ways, social resources available to a society).

Power, in this sense, represents the capacity to mobilize general resources in society
for the attainment of social goals. Thus, societies have general, collective,
developmental goals (such as the desire to raise living standards, eradicate poverty
and so forth) and the more these goals are realized, the greater the levels of overall
power that comes into existence in society.

The United States, for example, is a powerful nation precisely because it has been
able, collectively, to realize various goals (such as Territorial Unity, Consensual
Government, Ideological Homogeneity (effective value consensus on a wide range of
goals and issues), Economic Success).

Power, according to Parsons, is exercised in the general interests of society as a

whole and, although some groups will be more powerful than others, this is
necessary ("functional") because:

a. The realization of collective goals requires co-operation.

b. Co-operation requires organization.

c. Organization requires command.

d. The ability to command requires power...

Explain in your own words why functionalist sociologists generally tend to see
inequality (of power, access to social resources or whatever) as necessary and
function in modern societies.

As with all modern functionalist theory, power differences are functional only for as
long as they do not become imbalanced - if power is too one-sided it becomes
dysfunctional and powerful groups pursue short-term sectional interests that may not
be in the interests of long-term social development. Various "checks and balances"
are therefore built-into society (free elections, a Constitution, Freedom of the Press,
an independent legal system and so forth) that prevent sectional interests seizing
power.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

We have come across this idea (the concept of "dysfunction") many times in various
sections of the course.

a. Explain what is meant by this idea.

b. Show how the concept can be used as a kind of "catch-all" concept to

"explain away" theoretical problems in the functionalist analysis of social
systems.

Parsons argues that, precisely because levels of power are not constant, there does
not necessarily have to be a struggle for power in society. By co-operating, everyone
can gain a share of an expanding level of power. Just as levels of economic
resources can expand, so too can power as a social resource. Co-operation,
therefore, is not seen as some form of optional extra, but a structural imperative if a
society is to develop and expand...
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Classical Pluralism.

As I noted above, the classical pluralist conception of the State sees it as a set of
"neutral" social institutions that does not favour any one group or class over any
other. The State has no existence outside of the way its various machinery is
controlled and exploited. In this respect, the essence of the pluralist case is that, in a
democracy, political groups organize themselves to take control of the machinery of
the State.

Although the existence of competing political parties means they will each represent
a "core" or "fundamental" sectional interest (for example, the Conservative Party
appealing to business, the Labour Party representing organized labour), the political
system itself involves a number of structural checks and balances over the exercising
of power. For example:

a. Political parties have to have a sufficiently broad appeal to collect enough votes to
win an election. In this respect, they have to broaden their appeal to different
sectional interests.

b. Governments subject themselves to re-election after a set period of time and

abuses of power can then be punished by the electorate by voting a party out of
office.

c. Governments operate within the confines of some form of Constitutional norms

(either written norms, as in the case of America or informal, unwritten, norms in the
case of Britain). These norms represent the "basic rules of democratic organization"
in society.

d. An independent, autonomous, judiciary, different Houses of government (the

Commons and Lords in Britain, Congress and Senate in America) supply checks to
the power of government. In the case of Europe, an additional layer of checks and
balances is included through the Treaty of Rome, the European Parliament, the
European Court of Justice and so forth.

In addition, political parties are only one source of power for sectional interests:

Interest groups (or "Pressure groups") may be formed. These groups differ from
political parties insofar as they do not seek elected office, but merely to influence the
decision-making processes. Interest groups represent explicitly sectional interests
("narrow based" such as the R.S.P.C.A., or relatively "broad based" such as the
Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Trades' Union Congress (TUC) and so
forth) and compete with each other to influence political policy-making.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

For Classical Pluralists, therefore, democracy is characterized by:

1. A plurality of political parties:

These are predisposed towards sectional interests but have to appeal to a broader
social grouping (a wide range of sectional interests) in order to gain and retain power.

2. A plurality of interest groups.

These appeal to sectional interests only, and no attempt is made to incorporate

other, contradictory, sectional interests.

3. A broad value consensus over the legitimacy of political institutions (but not
necessarily a value consensus in society as a whole). There may be conflicts over
how political system should be specifically organized - for example the "first past the
post" system or "proportional representation" - but fundamental agreement exists
over the democratic nature of the political system.

Martin Deutsch has argued that classical pluralism generally consists of two main
forms in relation to the way in which the State is theorized:

a. Conservative Liberals who see the State as passive, only responding to wider
social changes that might affect the stability of society.

b. Social Democrats who see the State as being open to capture for the purpose of
intervening in society to bring-about reforms (such as the development of a Welfare
State, for example, which can only be brought into being by the over-riding influence
and political will organized at the level of the State).

In both cases, the State is seen as being:

a. Open to capture / influence.

b. Responsive to social pressures.

c. Neutral - not favouring one sectional interest over any other.

A good example of Classical Pluralist writing is that of Dahl ("Who Governs", 1961).
In his study of local politics in New Haven, Connecticut, USA, Dahl conceptualized
power in terms of "decision making".

Stephen Lukes ("Power: A Radical View", 1974) has termed this conceptualization
the "first face or dimension of power", and in this respect, this face of power
represents "the ability to make decisions". [Lukes argues that there are actually
three dimensions to power and we will consider these dimensions in a moment].

Dahl argued, empirically, that the decision-making process in New Haven involved a
variety of interest groups, all attempting to influence political decision-making. Some
groups were dominant over some issues, whilst others were dominant over other
issues. Dahl explicitly rejected the idea that this decision-making process could be
characterized as an economically dominant group / class also dominating the political
decision-making process.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Along similar lines, Hewitt's study of 24 policy issues in Britain between 1944 and
1964 ("Elites and the Distribution of Power in British Society", 1974) compared
Parliamentary decisions, views of interest groups and public opinion (as measured
through opinion polls) and found that there was no evidence of a consistent bias
towards one section of society over another. Whether this is still the case, after
nearly 15 years of the same political party in government is perhaps open to doubt...

Lukes has argued that, whilst this may be the case in relation to decision-making (the
first dimension of power), classical pluralist writers have ignored a second dimension
to power, namely "non-decision-making".

As Urry and Wakeford note, ("Power In Britain", 1973), pluralists, by concentrating

upon power as a "decision-making" process, ignore the fact that powerful groups can
prevent issues from ever reaching the point at which a decision is made. In this
respect, there may exist a filtering process whereby decisions are only ever taken on
"safe matters" - upon issues that do not fundamentally challenge or upset the
balance of power. Thus, powerful groups may exercise power in ways that are
hidden from public view, through:

Management of particular situations (for example, control of information).

The power to define certain situations (the difference between "terrorism" and
"freedom fighting", for example)

For example, the Thatcher governments in Britain during the 1980's:

1. Repeatedly changed the basis upon which unemployment figures were calculated
(resulting in a net decrease in "unemployment" - people were still without jobs, they
simply didn't appear in the statistics).

2. Failed to collect statistics about the extent of poverty in Britain, the distribution of
wealth, social class differences in terms of medicine, education, housing, taxation
and so forth.

3. Pursued a campaign against Trade Union organizations (through a "friendly" mass

media) that characterized them as "anti-democratic" organizations opposed to the
basic interests of the majority of people in Britain...

Lukes' third dimension of power is also relevant in this context, insofar as it involves
the ability to "shape desires". The argument here is that pluralists over-emphasize
the distinction between:

a. Decision-making,
b. Public opinion and
c. Power,

(in the sense that decision-making is held to be a reflection of public opinion).

Lukes argues that ideas about the social world do not arise in a social vacuum -
people's opinions are based upon numerous sources of information (many of which
can be controlled by the powerful - mass media, education and so forth). In this
respect, public opinion (whatever the term may actually mean - little attempt is ever
made to realistically measure it), can be shaped by the exercise of power to conform
to the desires of the powerful.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

In the above respect, the three dimensions of power outlined by Lukes can be
summarized as:

1. The ability to make decisions.

2. The ability to manipulate the debate over the kinds of decisions that actually reach
the stage of "being made".

3. The ability to shape public opinion so that it reflects the interests of the powerful.

Westergaard and Resler ("Class in Capitalist Society", 1976) argue, from a Marxist
perspective, that in addition to the above, the over-concentration upon a narrow
definition of power, politics and decision-making (such as that held by pluralist writers
generally), hides the reality of power. For example, there may well be a separation
between political decisions and the reasons for their being made:

Thus, the decision by the Major government to pump money into the NHS
immediately prior to the 1992 election may have been the result of a desire to head-
off protests in a pre-election period, rather than a desire to genuinely see an
improvement in health care...

Elite Pluralism

This development in pluralist thinking arose as a response to criticisms that not all
interest groups in a society have:

a. Equal levels of power.

b. Equal access to power.

In this respect, the concept of elite groups was developed, whereby elites where
seen as the main participants in a decision-making process. Such elites might
include:

Business organizations,
Government administration,
Political parties,
Trade Unions,
Cultural elites
and so forth.

Democracy, therefore, became characterized as a system of competing elites which

over-lapped in terms of influence, membership and so forth.

In this sense, elite groups are seen in terms of strategic forms of power. For
example, a strategic elite in Britain might be the Conservative Party as the party of
government.

A strategic elite, therefore, is one of a number of competing groups whose power

waxes and wanes at various times and over various issues - an idea that can be
expressed as a system of countervailing power (that is, power never becomes
concentrated in the hands of a small, unrepresentative, minority group).
Power and Politics Theories of Power

For elite pluralism, power is:

a. Situational - different groups have power in different social situations.

b. Non-cumulative - power is effectively compartmentalized, such that power in one

area (for example, economic power) is not necessarily translated into power in
another area of society.

If we use the example of the Conservative Party, we can understand the idea of
Structural and Strategic levels of power in the following way:

1. Structural Level:

As a political party, it competes with other parties for power. In this respect, the party
presents a set of policies to the electorate that both differentiates them from other
parties and, most importantly, attempts to appeal to a wide range of sectional
interests. In government, this party has the power to make decisions, but these
decisions are made in the light of influences from various sectional interests
(Business, labour, environmental, etc.).

2. Strategic Level:

Within the party, different sectional interests are in evidence (for example, the
Thatcherite radical right, the Heathite liberal conservatives and so forth). Additionally,
sectional interest groups may arise in the party over specific issues (Europe, Capital
Punishment, etc.).

Thus, there is seen to be competition at both the structural and strategic levels
amongst various sectional interests.

Elite pluralism stresses the idea that representation is secured by the organization of
sectional interests into elite groups who then compete with other elite groups for
power. Richardson and Jordan ("Governing Under Pressure", 1979) argue that there
are two basic forms of elite groups:

1. Insider groups: These elites are accepted by governments as legitimate

representatives of particular interests in society and are regularly consulted.

2. Outsider groups: Such groups are not seen as legitimate, they lack governmental
recognition and are not regularly / routinely consulted.

Recently, for example, we have seen the way in which environmentalist groups have
been transformed from outsider to insider groups, whereby such groups are now
routinely consulted for their views on environmental issues in a way that they were
not consulted in the past.

In terms of Lukes' view of power, elite pluralism examines the first and second
dimensions of power (the power to make decisions and the power to keep issues off
the political agenda), but still fails to address the third dimension, namely the ability to
shape people's desires.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Additional unresolved problems with elite pluralism include:

1. Even in a democracy, there are clear, widespread, disparities of power (even

amongst well-organized elite groups). The extent to which power is actually widely-
spread in society is not clear.

2. The lack of a third dimension of power means that elite pluralists fail to analyse the
way in which elite groups can monopolize power to:

a. Use power in their own, sectional, interests.

b. Shape the desires of the "general public" so that public opinion simply reflects the
interests of powerful groups at the expense of other groups in society.

c. Translate power in one area to power in another area. for example, the extent to
which elites overlap is significant, insofar as economic power clearly appears to
translate into political and ideological power.

In this respect, because elite pluralists tend to concentrate upon the strategic level of
power, they pay little attention to the structural level, whereby the "rules of the power
game" can be determined by a minority of very powerful interest groups.

Elite Theory (1)

This form of theory concerning the nature and distribution of power was originally
developed by:

a. Pareto ("The Mind and Society", 1916)

b. Mosca ("The Ruling Class")

at the beginning of the 20th century. Elite theory should not be confused with elite
pluralism.

Both Mosca and Pareto saw rule by elite groups as inevitable (even in supposedly
democratic societies) and, as such, considered this state of affairs to be desirable - it
was, effectively, "right and proper" that elite groups should dominate the political
decision-making process.

What arguments, for and against, can you outline in relation to the view that rule by
elites might / might not be "right and proper"?

Whilst Pareto saw political power in terms of a "continuous circulation of elite groups"
who rule because of their members superior intelligence, education, cunning and so
forth (that is, their superior personal qualities), Mosca argued that elite groups ruled
politically because of their superior organizational ability.

In this latter respect, elites came to power because of their superior internal
organization - they took power in the face of the disorganization of other elites, the
general mass of the population and so forth.

Both writers saw the general (politically disorganized) mass of the population as
being controlled through manipulation, propaganda and the like to serve the interests
of powerful elites.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Summary of Pareto's arguments:

Following the ideas of Machiavelli, he distinguished two main types of elite group:

a. "Lion elites" who were able to rule by force (for example, military regimes).

b. "Fox elites" who were able to rule by manipulation (for example, liberal democratic
regimes).

Given that Pareto's view of political power was pretty-much all-encompassing, he

attempted to resolve the problem of political change (how, if an elite was effectively
all-powerful, could it be replaced by another elite?) by reference to the idea that
elites, after they achieve power, have a relatively limited life-span. That is, they grow
decadent, decay, lose their vigour and so forth and, in turn, come to be replaced by
other, more-vigorous, elite groups.

In this respect, we can see the theory of "circulating elites": powerful groups arise in
society, take power, lose their political vitality over time and are replaced.

A contemporary example might be the Conservative party 1970 - 1990. Within this
party, various elite grouping existed that rose to prominence, took power within the
party and, after a few years, began to decay (Heath, through Thatcher, to Major...).

There are, however, numerous problems with this form of analysis:

1. Pareto, for example, simply assumes that elite groups are somehow superior to all
other groups in society. He gives little real idea about how and why they are
supposedly superior.

2. The distinction between types of elite is simplistic and does not recognize the fact
that, in democratic societies, the politically powerful may rule through a combination
of economic, military, political and ideological power.

3. His explanation for the replacement of elites is over-simplistic, insofar as he

provides no real explanation as to why elites should necessarily become decadent or
decay.

4. For Pareto, there appears to be little basic difference between democratic

societies and totalitarian societies.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Summary of Mosca's arguments:

Although Mosca shared with Pareto the idea that elite groups had superior qualities
to "the masses" (who were effectively born to be lead / controlled), he emphasized
the social background of elites rather than their "personal qualities". In this respect,
elites ruled because of their superior internal organizational abilities (some elites
were better equipped than others to take power) and Mosca recognized that the
organizational qualities needed to assume power varied from society to society.

Unlike Pareto, Mosca did attempt to distinguish between democratic and totalitarian
societies, insofar as, in the former, the masses could have some input into the
political process. However, his basic position was that democracy could never be
anything more than a manipulative, legitimating, process whereby elites consolidated
their power by co-opting the masses to support the interests of the powerful (rather
than by truly representing the interests of the masses).

Briefly summarize the main differences between Mosca and Pareto's "elites
theory"
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Elite Theory (2)

A more-radical and theoretically well-developed form of elite theory was proposed by

C. Wright Mills. Whilst Mills concentrates upon the way elite groups organize and
take power in democratic societies, he argued this process - far from being right,
proper and inevitable (as argued by Mosca and Pareto) - was neither inevitable nor
necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. In this respect, Mills elaborated a form of
non-Marxist Conflict theory concerning elites in democratic societies.

Mills' analysis stems from the idea that certain elite groups arose to control various
institutions in society. Since some institutions were more-powerful than others (an
economic elite, for example, was likely to be more powerful than an educational or
religious elite), it followed that the elite groups who controlled such institutions would
hold the balance of power in society as a whole - they would dominate politically on
the structural level of power.

In his analysis of American society in the 1950's, Mills identified three major
institutions (or "power blocs") within the State that he considered to be of primary
significance in terms of the potential for wielding power in society:

a. Major Corporations.
b. The Military.
c. Federal Government.

Each of these institutions formed a power bloc in its own right (since each has a set
of specific interests) and each was dominated by an internal elite (the leaders of the
most-powerful corporations, the upper echelons of the armed forces, the leaders of
the political party in government). Although such elites were powerful in their own
right, in any society there exists a necessary degree of overlap and co-operation
between these power blocs:

The Military requires political co-operation (identification of legitimate

enemies, for example) and economic co-operation.

Major Corporations require co-operation from government, defence contracts

etc.

Federal government requires the support of the Military, a strong corporate

sphere and so forth.

Thus, Mills argued that the degree of necessary co-operation between elites within
these power blocs effectively meant that they formed a "power elite" within society.
Their overlapping general interests meant that, whilst they may have differing specific
interests, these are subjugated to the wider interest of maintaining elite status, power
and rule. The social cohesiveness of the power elite was seen to be strengthened by
such things as:

a. The centralization and concentration of economic power amongst a minority of

powerful groups / individuals.

b. The centralization and concentration of political power amongst a minority of

powerful groups / individuals.

c. The shared social backgrounds (and hence values) of the members of each elite.
Power and Politics Theories of Power

Thus, for Mills, the members of different elites frequently inter-changed, such that
certain powerful individuals could be members of more than one elite at any given
time (for example, military leaders could take-up political appointments, become
directors of major corporations. Major business leaders could take-up political
appointments in government and politicians could sit on the boards of major
corporations).

In this respect, political power becomes increasing concentrated and enormous

political decisions (about investment, whether or not to go to war, civil rights and so
forth) were effectively taken by a small elite minority. In this respect, politics declined
into a manipulation of debate - Mills characterized it as a necessary exercise where
political choice is limited because political parties who wanted power could only
achieve it on the basis of co-operation from economic and military elites.

In America, for example, in order to fund an election campaign, aspiring politicians

require money from businesses, the rich and so forth and, in return, are encouraged
to pursue policies that are favourable to this power bloc. Politics, according to Mills,
becomes thoroughly permeated by a business / military ideology - there may be
different parties and different politicians, but they will pursue the same basic policies
because they are effectively tied-into the military / industrial complex of power.

If we apply this form of analysis to Britain over the past 20 years, it becomes evident
that the Labour Party, for example, has been forced to progressively jettison any
pretence it may have had to being a "radical", "socialist" party that will carry-through
wide-ranging changes in the balance of economic power. whilst the Conservative and
Labour parties differ in relation to specific policies (over "safe decisions"), a basic,
underlying, consensus exists about the overall nature of society and its political /
economic institutions (over "non-safe" decisions).

Again, a power elite in Britain might be identified, its various leaders being
characterized by similar social backgrounds and values. In this respect, political
power resembles a "self-perpetuating oligarchy", whereby the faces may change, but
basic political policies remain much the same...

Communist societies also seem to be a clear example of power elite societies and, in
this respect, may display more theoretically coherent forms of elite co-operation.
Budge, McKay and Marsh ("The New British Political System", 1983) attempt to
refine Mills' basic argument by noting that, in democracies, a form of fragmented
elites tends to exist - a large number of competing elites exist, each of which may
have internal and external divisions.
UNIT 21 PRESSURE GROUPS
Structure

21.0 Objectives
2 1.1 Introduction
21.2 Meaning of Pressure Groi~ps
21.3 Role of Pressure Groups
2 1.4 Techniques of Pressure Groups
21.5 Pressure Groups and Political Parties
21.6 Types of Pressure Groups
21.7 Comparison of Indian and Western Pressure Groups
21.8 Let Us Sum Up
21.9 Some Useful Books
21.10 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

21.0 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you should be able to:
analyse the role of pressure groups in democratic politics;
explain the types of pressure groups; and
compare the Indian and Western pressure groups.

21.1 INTRODUCTION

In democratic politics, pressure groups are organisations which attempt to

influence tlie government. The International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences
describes tlie groups as representilig the interest of the sections into which a
society is divided. With advanced specialisatio~igroups will be more numerous and
specialised. Such groups represent interest of various sections of society viz.,
farmers, labourers, government employees, businessmen, professio.nal people and
even students. Pressure groups are also known as interest groups.

21.2 MEANING OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Pressure groups are organised associations, unions or organisation of people

having common interest. Their aim is to seek better conditions for their members
through organised efforts. They try to influence tlie legislature, executive and
other decision makers to have decisions made in their favour.

According to V.O.Key, a striking feature of American politics is tlie extent to

wliich political parties are supple~nentedby private associations formed to
influence public policy. Tliese organisations are co~n~nonly called pressure groups.
David B.Truman defines an interest group as "a shared attitude group that makes
certain claims upon the other groups in the society." One of the major trends in
democratic political process is the increasing role of pressure groups. Herman
Finer viewed that it is perhaps now an axiom of political science that, where
political parties are weak in principles and organisation, the pressure groups will
flourish; where pressure groups are strong, political parties will be feeble; and
I'attcrns of P o l i l i c n l
Participation and
Rcpresen t a t i o n
where political parties are strong, pressure groups will be curbed. I n .the context
o f the USA, the rigid nature o f its constitution, the doctrine o f separatio~io f
powers, difficulties of conveying the grievances o f t l ~ epeople to the government,
etc. contribute to tlie growth o f pressure groups in American politics. American
pressure groups are not mucli influenced by the political parties whereas in Britain
pressure groups implicitly or explicitly have attachment with political parties.
Indian political parties are weak in principles and organisation. Therefore, pressure
groups are supposed to be very significant in the functioning o f the India11Political
System. In parliame~itarysystem of goverliment, pressure groiIps exert pressure
mainly on tlie executive with tlie assumption that legislature is under the coritrol
o f exec~tive.Here executive i~icludesbotli the political and permanent executive.
21.3 ROLE OF PRESSURE GROUPS
Group activities are generally more effective than individual activities. Therefore,
pressure groups play c vital role in a democratic society in terms o f i~ifluenci~ig
the government for expressi~igtlie commoli concern o f a section o f society and
promote tlieir interest. The vitality o f tlie pressure groups is mainly determined by
tlieir ability to i ~ i f l i ~ e ~tlie
i c egover~iment.Influencing the government involves
irifluencing tlie public policy decision makers, law makers, imple~nenterso f policies
and de~::;ons, etc. The role o f pressure groups is closely connected with politics.
Here our assumpti011 i s tliat power is an essential element o f politics which
implies the study o f influence. In this context Harold D. Lasswell in his early
work on politics, uses tlie subtitle, "who gets what, when, how?" and says tliat,
"the study o f politics i s tlie study o f influences and influential." I n view o f this
understanding, tlie slate o f pressure groups in democratic countries co~istitutesan
itiiporta~itdimension o f the study o f politics because tlie primary objective o f any
pressure group is to influence tlie goverlimelit 011 a specific public policy issue or
probleni.
Pressure groilps do not contest elections and they may not liave political
programmes. Pressure groups informally attempt to influence the government on a
specific public policy issue o f a section o f society.
Freedom o f associati011is generally found in all democratic societies. This is
required in order to identify and promote comlnoli interest or well-being o f tlie
people through the collective activities. This is regarded as tlie basic factor which
tends to the establislime~ito f pressure groups. So, pressure groups play a crucial
role in interest formati011 and interest aggregation.
Pressure groups play the mediatory role between tlie people and government.
They balancle tlie national interest and interest o f individuals. Ge~ierallyinterests o f
the common people are not organised. Pressure groups contribute to give colicrete
shape to the interests o f people. This role o f pressure groups is sig~iificantin
interest for~iiatiotias well as ititerest aggregation. The groups liave to move
demands before tlie gover~imentbased on tlie difficulties or grievances o f people.
Interest forn~ationmay occur through tlie reactions o f groups o f people on issues
of public importance like GATT, Nuclear explosion, reservation policy,
environmental issues, price rise, regional imbalances, rural development program,
etc.
According to Gabriel Almo~idand Bingham Powell, converting tlie demands into
policy alternatives is interest aggregation. I n this process also, pressure groups
play a significant role in terms of identif~i~ng possible policy alternatives or options.
They also explain the pros and cons o f each policy alternative whicli is a very
helpful information for tlie policy niakers to select tlie best alter~iative.This role Prcsaurr ( ; r o u ~ s
o f pressure groups is to provide inpi~tsto public policy making. On the whole,
pressure groups contribute to deniocratise the public policy niaking and law
making.

When it is found that political parties cannot adequately represent tlie aspiratio~is
o f the people, pressure groups become the devices for representing the aspirations
o f the people. I n this sense, pressure groups perform the represetitation function.

I n a welfare state, the growing functions o f government rnay tend to affect the
responsive capability o f tlie political system. Besides tlie menibers o f government
niay not be able to get sufficient time to get all the details of a particular issue o f
public importance as tlie political elites are preoccupied in tlie political activities.
In view o f these, pressure groups are essential to make tlie political system
respond to the aspirations o f people and provide tlie details o f a particular policy
issue o f public importance to the ruling political elites. This will contribute to work
out development activities very effectively.

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i) Use tlie space give11 below for your answer,
6

ii) Check your answer with that give11 at the end o f the unit.

1) Explain tlie meaning and role o f pressure groups in democratic politics.

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

21.4 TECHNIQUES OF PRESSURE GROUPS

The niain tecliniques o f pressilre groups are manipulati~igpublic opinion,

persuading legislators and administrators, etc. Wlie~isollie project, as for instance
tlie Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) in Gujarat, and tlie Kaiga project in Karnataka,
are likely to affect tlie interest o f a sectio~iand region, pressure g r o ~ ~ patteliipt
s to
promote environmental awareness by providing the necessary infor~iiationto tlie
concerned people. This role of pressure groups tends to change the public attitude
towards a specific issue. 'l'lie extent o f influence o f pressure groups on
government i s mainly determined by their positio~ito represent public opinion.
Hence it i s necessary on tlie part o f pressure groups to influence the process o f
formation of public opinion. As a consequence. pressure groups seerii to
manipulate public opinion.

Pressure groups have friends and allies in the legislatures as in the case o f
American Co~igressand tlie l~idiariParliametit. Influence o f pressure groups ,is
through the legislators for making specific provisio~isor deleting sollie provisio~iin
legislation. This involves lobbyi~igand it i s particularly influential in tlie USA.

Pressure groups atteliipt to inflire~icethe process o f i~iiple~iientation

o f decisions
tlirough tlie administrators. Besides, pressure groups adopt tlie technique o f
Patterns or Political influencing the government through public interest litigation in courts o f law.
Participation and
Representation When we talk o f the techniques o f the pressure groups, we should take into
account the political form in which the pressures are to be exercised. I n the U.S.,
the pressure are exercised in the presidelitial form. I n India, they are to be
exercised in the context o f the cabinet form o f government. 1-lie methods o f
pressure groups in India may be said to be ill-defined and, to some extent, crude.
The methods o f the American pressure groups are highly developed and routine.
In tlie U.S, tlie need for tlie pressure groups is felt greatly because tlie executive
i s separate frotn tlie legislature and both o f them o f course are separate fro111 the
judiciary. In India, tlie co-ordination between tlie legislature. tlie executive and the
judiciary is well defined. Tlie judiciary is independe~itbut does not have tlie
powers o f judicial review as wide as in the U.S. In India, tlie judiciary is
asserting its position under the influence o f the pressure groups which are bringing
before it tlie public interest litigatioti which is seen clearly in case o f
environmdntal pressure groups and economic pressure groups. Medlia Patkar and
lier associates have exercised a vast atnount o f pressure on tlie executive at the
state and central level over the question o f the Narmada dam and particularly tlie
resettlement o f tlie people affected by the dam. Tliere are pressure groups which
have been working on tlie problems o f daily wage workers atid women and many
o f them are exercising pressure by bringing their cases before tlie coi~rtsin tlie
form o f public interest litigation. Even in tlie limited contelt o f municipal
government, as in case o f Bombay, citizens are taking cases to the liigli courts to
exert pressure on the niunicipal authorities to clean streets and undertake
environmental measure. In tlie context o f India, as in several developing countries,
these tecli~iiquesare new. Therefore tlie pressure groups have to work hard to
orga~iisetlie riieliibers o f the public in order to be effective in relation to
governliient and public administration. In active cities like Pune, citizens have gone
to tlie estent o f bringing back tlie transferred commissioner in tlie teetli o f
opposition o f tlie state government.

Check Your Progress 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with that given at the end o f the unit.
1) What are the tecliniques adopted by the pressure groups in different forms o f
government?

21.5 PRESSURE GROUPS AND POLITICAL PARTIES

Pressure groups and political parties constitute very important structure o f a

political system. Both pressure groups and political parties are extra-constitutional
agencies and play a crucial role in the political process. Sometimes, pressure
groups become political parties. In Maliaraslitra, tlie Sliiva Sena was a pressure
group and it has now become a political party. Similarly, tlie Kar~iatakaRajya
Sangli (KRRS) in Karnataka, was i~iitiallya pressure group. After sometime, the
KRRS became a political party in Karnataka.
Pressure groups may give rise to political parties. The cultural and religious
pressure group (tlie RSS) gave rise to the establisliment o f Bliafatiya Jam Sa~igh
in 195 1. Tlie Indian political parties liave correspo~idi~ig
students organisations
namely, Akliil Bliaratiya Vidyartlii Parisliad (ABVP), Students Federation o f India
(SFI), A1I-India Students Federations (A1SF), etc. which are regarded as pressure
groups o f students affiliated with one party ,or tlie other. There can be pressure
groups within a political party. Tlie Seva Dal was a unit of the Indian National
Congress before independence and it was working as a pressure group. After
independence, tlie Seva Dal has continued to be a pressure group but it i s not so
effective now as in pre-independence days.

A political party i s a larger organisation, while a pressure group is comparatively

a s~nallorganisation. Tlie main objective o f a political party is to come to power
whereas tlie main concern of a pressure group i s to influence the government for
promoting its specific interest. However. political parties liave to represent the
aggregate o f diverse interests of tlie people. That i s why pressurc groups are
regarded as non-political. Parties put up tlicir candidates, try to win maxinium
number o f seats ill tlie legislature arid form government, if possible. Pressure
Groups do not, on their own, do any o f these things.

A political party requires an ideology which enables it to have an identity.

Pressure groups do not need ideology and sometimes they may be subjected to
tlie influence of an ideology.

Check Your Progress 3

Note: i) Use tlie space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with that give11at the elid o f the unit.

1) How are pressure groups different fro111political parties?

.......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

21.6 TYPES OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Rationale and methods o f operation o f various pressure groups tnay not basically
vary from one country to another country. Tlie generalisations that can be tiiade
are broadly applicable to understanding o f tile working o f pressure groups in
various cou~itries.Tlie origin o f pressure groups is diverse sirice they represent a
particular dimension o f interests like economic, social and political interests.
Pressure groups exist for protecting or promoting particirlar intercst(s).

Pressure groups call be broadly classified into tlie following categories :

1) Busi~iessGroups
2) Labour Orga~lisatio~ls
3) Farmers' Groi~ps
4) Professional Groups
5) Religious Groups
I) IZusiness G r o u p s

Businessmen are generally well-organised and their colicerli would be to get

reasonable restrictions i~iiposedon the production and distribution o f goods, import
and export o f commodities. determination o f price o f coniniodities, etc. There are
busi~iessgroups likc tlic Natinrial .Association o f ManuFxturers i n the USA. the
Federation o f B r i ~ i s hindustries. tlie National Council o f French Employers, tlie
Federation o f Gertiian Industry, tlie Federation o f Indian Chambers o f Commerce
and Industry (FICCI), etc.

I n India tlie British merchants established the Clia~iihero f Comrnerce i n 1830s.

I n j926, i t was decided to establisli a national Indian business organisation. In tlie
followiiig year the sariie business organisatioti becariie tlie Federation o f
Chambers o f Commerce and Indt~stry.Tlie support o f the wealthy businessman
like G.D.Birla made this busi~iessgroup an iniportant and influential force. I n
addition to the Federation o f Chambers o f Commerce and Industry there are
other national business groups namely tlie All-India Manufacturers' Organisation,
tlie Associated Cliambers o f Commerce and Industry of lridia etc. These business
groups keep in to~ccliwith political partics and contribute to party t i ~ n d sand some
candidates in elecrions arc linanced by the busincssmcn.

?'lie primary li~nctiono f any busiricss group is to protect its b~rsinessinterests like
opposing tas incrcasc. ininimuln co~ltrolon labour. etc.

2) L a b o u r Organisations

I n the USA trade union politics began witli tlie establishment o f tlie America11
Federation o f Labour ill 1886. There are labour organisations like tlie communist
dominated Confederation of Christian Trade Unions i n France, German
Confederation o f Trade Unions, Transport and General Workers' IJnion in
England, Indian National Trade Union Congress, etc. The labour organisations are
colicer~iedwitli paj.ment o f adequate wages and emoluments, reasonable working
liours and conditions of' service, cornpetisation in case o f sonic accident. etc. They
are often associated with one party or the other.

I n lridia tlie Indian National,Trade Union Congress (INTUC), tlie United Trade
IJnion Congrcs (U'I'IJC). ihc Iiind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). A l l India Trade Union
Congress (AITLIC:). I3linratiya Mazdoor Sangli have links witli political parties like
tlie Congress ( I ) . C o ~ i i ~ i i ~ r nparties,
ist [lie Socialist Party. the BJP etc. A l l tliese
trade unions are rcgn~.dcdas ~lia-jorIndian Labour Organisations.

3) Farmers' Groups

Far~iiers'groups are basically co~icerriedwith protecting tlie interest o f farrners

from adverse effects o f moder~iisationand getting facilities o f ~iioder~iisatiolito tlie
fanners. These include co~itinuatio~i o f subsidy to tlie fanners, minimum price for
agriculti~ralproducts, etc. In tlie USA, tlie farnlers' groups like Alliericari Farm
Bureau Federation, tlie National Grainge. tlie National Farmers' Educational and
Co-operative Union o f America are regarded as very important far~iiers'groups
for getting tlieir just dues fro111 tlie governnient. In India. we have far~iiers'
groups like Karnataka Rajya Kaitli Sa~igli,Setkari Sangli o f Sliarad Joshi i n
Maharaslitra and similar organisation o f Maliendra Singli Tikait in UP.

4) I'rofcssionnl Organisations

I'rofessional orga~iisatio~is are ~ i i a i ~ iconcer~ied

ly witli the service conditions and "':
otlier facilities for their respective professions. Associatiolis like teachers'
association, ~ i i e d i c a association,
l bar aL~,ociation,etc. are regarded as pressure I ' r c s s ~ l r c Groups

groups based on their professions. The American Association o f University

Teachers, All-lndia Federation o f University and College Teacliers' Organisations,
tlie American Bar Association, the 111dian Political Science Association. the British
Medical Association are some o f tlie examples o f professional pressure groups.

5) Religious Organisations

Religious pressure groups gener;~lly attenlpt t o protect tlie interest o f a particular

religion. 111 the USA, the National Council o f Cliurclies is a religious pressure
group. The other religious pressure groups are tlic American Jcwisli Committee.
American Jewish Congress, etc. I n the Indian contest. tlic caste and c o n i n i i ~ n a l
associations can be categorised as religious pressure groups. I n India11 politics,
caste associations are increasingly getting proniinence and b e c o ~ n i n gvery
infli~ential.

Check Your Progress 4

Note: i) Use tlie space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer w i t h that given at the end o f the unit.

1) Describe the various types o f presslire groups.

.......................................................................................................................

21.7 COMPARISON OF INDIAN AND WESTERN

PRESSURE GROUPS
Botli India and Western countries are democracies. But \vitIiin western countries
there are differences between Presidential and Parlia~iientaryf o r n ~ so f
government. India tliougli a parlia~iientarydemocracy differs fro111 sucli countries
o f the West i n terms o f developmental levels. Therefore there are some
differences i n the role o f pressure groups.

Firstly, the American pressure groups are regarded as tlie fourth organ o f tlie
government but the Indian pressure groups are not yet sbie to play sucli
significa~itrole i n politics.

Secondly, i n India and Great Britain tlie cabinet and c i v i l service are the niain
targets o f pressure groups for lobbyirig purposes rather than the parliament.
However, tlie targets o f American pressure groups are tlie Congress and its
committees rather than the President for lobbying purposes.

'I'liirdly, Indian pressuregroups based o n caste, religion, region, etc. are more
powerfill than the r i i o d e r ~groups
i like busi~iessorganisations.

Fourthly. a significant feature of' American pressure groups is that i n tlie U S A

pressure groups take interest i n foreign policy issucs wliilc i n India pressure
groups do not seem t o have interest i n foreign policy matters. Comparatively, the
Indian pressure groups are concerned more w i t h doriicstic policy issi~esand
problenis, and less w i t h f o r e i g ~ pol
i icy matters.
H o w e m in gcnieral, dcspttc tlic diffcrcnccs. deniocratic politics prcsupposes tlie
crucial rote o f pslcfsrlre groups for serving the interests o f different sections o f
society.

21.8 LET US SUM UP

Pressure groups play a vital role i n deniocratic politics in terms o f representing

and pro~hotingthe aspiratioris o f tlie people. l'he significance o f pressure groups
is mainly determined by the political parties, the f o r n ~ so f government, attitudes o f
people towards politics. the nature o f leadership etc.

Pressure groups are different f r o n ~political parties ~ n a i n l ybecause their main

purpose is to secure masimum advantage for their nicmbers whose interests are
comnion. Political parties contest electio~isto legislative bodies. and those who get
majority form tlie government and control the administration. Pressure groups do
~ i o scek
t political powcr. l'licy only try to influence the decision-makers.

There ave different types o f pressure groups, such as business groups, labour
orga~iisatio~is(trade unions), farn~ers'associations, professional groups (e.g. bar
associations, n~edicalassociations, teachers associations and chartered accountants
groups), and religious groups. Some o f tlie pressure groups associate themselves
directly, or indirectly, with one political party 01 tlie other, without formally joining
it.

21.9 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

V.O.Key, Polilics. Ptrrlies trritl Pres.strrc G'rotr~,s,N e w York, Thomas & Crowell
Company, 1969, p. 18.

Hernian Finer. Tlleor:~ltrritl Prt~c/iceof Mochrrl G'o~~errtrrte~i~,

Delhi, Surjeet, 1977.

Prc)sstrr.e Grol~psin Irirlitrri Politic's, N c w Dellii : Radiant Publisliers, 1980. p.38.

Verinder Grover (Ed.) Poli/ics of' l~!fltre~~c.e.

Violcncc) trr~rlPresstrre G r o ~ p s ,
N e w Dellii, Deep and Deep Publication, 1990.

21.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES

Check Your Progress 1

1) These are groups o f people organised to achieve a common goal. They try to
intluence decision-makers to seek masimum co~icessionsfor tlieir members.
(See Sections 2 1.2 and 2 1.3)

Check Your Progress 2

I) Maliipulation o f public opinion, pcrsuading legislators and administrators. They

have tlicir fricnds in lcgislat~~rcs
and adniinistration. Thcy often offer benefits
to dccision-~iiakcrsto favour their groups. (See Section 2 1.4)

Check Your Progress 3

1) Political parties have clear and distinct ideologies, pressure groups merely
promote tlie collective interests o f tlieir groups. Parties seek political power
 and contest elections; groups do not. Groups only exercise influence or
pressure over the decision makers. (See Section 21.5)

Check Your Progress 4

1) Tliey are mailily labour (trade) unions. business groups, farniers groups.
religious groups and professio~ialgroups, such as doctors' associations, bar
(lawyers') associations, teachers organisations, traders groups, etc. (See
section 2 1.6)
Unit 29 Social Movements: Meanings and
Dimensions
Contents
29.1 Introduction
29.2 Concepts of Social Movements
29.3 Origin of Social Movements.
29.4 Components of Social Movements
29.5 Transformation of Social Movements
29.6 Conclusion

Learning Objectives

Social movements have emerged to be a crucial area of social science inquiry.

This unit deals with

• the concepts of social movements

• origin of social movements
• element of social movements and
• transformation of social movements

29.1 Introduction
Social Movements are parts of social progression. These phenomena represent
varieties of collective actions across time and space. As social processes social
movements emerge as manifestation of collective discontent against the
established social, economic and political orders. These emerge as the collective
critic of the society rejuvenating vital social forces. As student of sociology
you would be interested to know the meanings and several social, political,
economic, cultural etc dimensions of social movements.

This unit introduces you to some of the fundamental issues of social movement.
It aims to conceptualize social movement from a socio-historical perspective.
There are several traditions of conceptualizing social movements. Glimpses of
these traditions are also presented here. There are several causes of social
movements. In this unit we have elaborated the causes or origins of social
movement and have explained the roles of ideology, leadership and organization
in social movements. The processes of transformation of social movements are
in also discussed here. Since we would be dealing with varieties of issues,
involved in social movements in the following units of this block these key
issues are clarified at the outset for cognitive coherence of this the block.

29.2 Concept of Social Movements

Social movements have broadly been perceived as ‘organized’ or ‘collective
effort’ to bring about changes in the thought, beliefs, values, attitudes,
relationships and major institutions in society or to resist any change in the
above societal arrangements. Blumer (1951 defines social movements as
‘collective enterprises to establish a new social order of life’. To Toch (1965)
social movement is an ‘effort by a large number of people to solve collectively
a problem they feel they have in common’. According to Haberle (1972) it is
‘a collective attempt to bring about a change in certain social institutions or
to create entirely a new order’, J.R. Gusfield (1972) perceives a social movement
as a socially shared demand for change in some aspect of the social order’. To
Wilson (1973), social movements may either be for a change or resistance to
181
 change. Thus to him, a social movement is an organised endeavour to bring
about or to resist large-scale changes in the social order by non-institutionalized
means.

a) Historical and Social Context of Conceptualization

It is significant that social movements are conceptualized in a particular

historical and social context. For example in the North American society, in
the wake of the emerging threat from the Fascist and the Communist movements
in the 1930s “social movements are conceptualized by scholar like Haberle in
1951 as the potentially dangerous forms of non-institutionalized collective
political behaviour which if left unattended, threatened the stability of the
established ways of life”. Social movement however, is not solely distructives.
As a collective agency it possesses several creative potentials. Thus many
scholars like Blumer and many other have highlighted the emergence of new
norms of adaptive behaviour, problem solving and learning orientation potentially
present in social movements. In the 1950s and 1960s the scholars like Turner
and Killian (1957), Parsons, (1969) Smeler and others viewed social movement
from collective behaviour perspective. In this approach social movements are
viewed as non-institutionalized collective actions, which are is not guided by
existing social norms, formed to meet undefined or unstructured situations
and are understood in terms of a breakdown either in the organs of social
control or normative integration, due to structural changes. The resulting
strains, discontent, frustration, and aggression from this situation ultimately
lead the individual to participate in non-institutionalized. It is also pointed
out that this behaviour pattern has a ‘life cycle’, which moves from spontaneous
crowd action to the formation of public and social movement (Cohen, 1995:671-
72, cf. Jamison and Eyreman, 1991:14).

Again each society has its own perception on the social movements which is
developed based on its own socio-economic, cultural and the intellectual
tradition. For example, the scholars in the Europe conceptualized social
movements in a somewhat different term, based on their socio-political
conditions and the intellectual heritage, from that of the Americans. While in
the US it is an empirically observable phenomenon, in Europe it has emerged
to be theoretically connected object. The Marxian theoretical position was
widely followed in Europe; Weberian position was widely used in the United
States.

It is significant that after the World War II the philosophy of the ‘welfare
state’ was widely accepted all over the world except in the authoritarian
regimes. As a corollary to this welfare state philosophy institutionalized conflicts
between labour and capital were recognised as legitimate collective social
behaviour in the modern society. According to Eyerman and Jamison the
existence of strong, institutionalized, reformist social democratic labour
movement in all the countries of Western Europe affected the way social
movements were conceived by social scientists. As the conflict between labour
and capital got institutionalized in the social democratic tradition, labour
movement also got a legitimate place as organised collective behavior in the
modern societies. In the United States social movement has remained anti
ideological and the distinction between social movement and social institution.
Thus Smelser distinguishes between general movement (long term shift in
societal norms and values and change in attitude and consciousness) and
social movements (immediate observable outburst of collective behaviour
pushing long term changes along with it). Thus he distinguishes between norm
and value oriented social movements respectively. And accordingly, a social
movement to him, was an observable expression of general movement (Eyerman
and Jamison , 1991:17-18)

Social movements in the developing countries were manifested in different

182
socio political contexts. Anti colonial, workers and the peasant movements
were the dominant patterns of collective actions with a wide political
connotation in built in these movements. While the anti colonial movements
aimed at the liberation of the colonized countries from the imperial powers,
the workers and the peasant movements were directed against the oppressive
capitalists and landowners of these countries. Significantly, the nationalist
spirit of the cross section of the population was the most appealing force in
the anti colonial movement, while the workers and the peasant movements
were mostly organised based on the Marxian philosophy of class struggle. In
the post World War II period success stories of the workers and the peasant
movements in the then Soviet Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba had became
the guiding spirit to the workers and the peasant movements in the developing
countries. Social movements of various forms have got wider legitimacy in the
political culture in the societies. In a state of increasing poverty, illiteracy,
corruption and sharpening class inequality a vast section of the population
have accepted organised collective action as a mode of protest and survival.
However, in the wake socio political transition, globalisation and introduction
to new economic order in these countries the forms of collective action have
under gone a qualitative change.

b) Change in Perception since late 1950s

The established social and the political order of Europe and America received
a severe jolt in late 1950s and 1960s with the vehement outburst of the Black
civil rights, students, women’s, peace, gay and environment etc. movements.
The hitherto existing theoretical perspectives however, were unable to explain
these movements which marked a sharp departure from the earlier organised
movements of labor and the working class. These departures were largely
viewed in terms of the emergence of new social actors and categories due to
the fundamental shift in social structure and the emergence of post-industrial
society. The ‘postindustrial movements engage different actors, different loci
of conflict and different issues than those of the industrial society. Even at
the empirical level, these social movements exhibited new characteristics and
new ideas. Hence there was a need to move beyond the existing framework
of explanation.

Touraine (1981, 1983) observes these phenomena as ‘new social movement

being potential bearers of new social interests’. To him, it is through the
process of collective will formation that social movements come to recognize
themselves as collective actors with a historical project. The European tradition
tried to discover a process of new knowledge and collective identity formation
in these actions. Here the most common approach has been to analyze social
movement to be the carriers of political projects, and historical actions.

Thus in the European tradition social movement is seen in terms of structures

and long term processes. There is a concern for distinguishing the new from
the old social movements.

For the European sociologists, it is the political meaning of the movement

that is of utmost significance. For example, Alberto Melucci (1988) sees social
movements in primarily symbolic terms and identity formation as a kind of
dramaturgy. Social movements make power visible, and they challenge the
dominant meaning systems or symbols of contemporary everyday life. He talks
about the issues of identity in social movements in great length. We shall
discuss this issue in the next two units of this block.

The American sociologists have however, seen knowledge and identity as non-
empirical objects. The knowledge component of a social movement to them
provide the issues or ideologies around which movements mobilize resources
or socialize individuals.’
183
 Since 1960s and onward the collective behaviour approach is bring contested
by the resource mobilisation theorists to emphasis on the effectiveness of the
movement organization (see Zald and McCarthy 1987). As an alternative to
collective behaviouralism, the theory of resource mobilisation has emerged in
the American tradition to explore why some movements are more successful
than others. Tilly (1978) for example identifies collective action in terms of the
pursuit of common interest, which is typical of social, all movements. This
approach assumes that collective actions are related to the specific opportunity
structures. Here importance is given on the rationality of human action,
whereby the participants in the social movement calculate the cost and benefits
of their participatory action in collective mobilization. In this approach social
movements are seen ‘either as the creation of entrepreneurs skillful in the
manipulation or mobilisation of social resources or as the playing out the social
tensions and conflicts’. Thus the motivation of the actors is seen as rational
economic action. The resource mobilization theory, indeed, aims to interpret
those sets of social movements that are the visible parts of the American
social reality in management term. It is linked to the policy problem of
containment. (Ibid: 47)

Social movements in the developing countries have conventionally been

conceptualized either from the Marxian or from the Functionalist perspectives.
However the proliferation of the new social movements, manifestation of new
form of collective actions, resurgence of the violence in the new contexts and
the articulation of new forms of collective actions in these societies have
generated enormous interests among the social scientists, policy planners and
social activists for the study of social movements. However there has been a
tendency to analyze social movements of these societies following the
theoretical tools widely used in the western societies.

Reflection and Action 29.1

What do you mean by social movements? How has the issue of identity been
conceptualized as an essential part of social movements?

29.3 Origin of Social Movements.

There are several schools of thoughts on the origin of social movements. The
classical model of thought is represented by the versions of mass society,
collective behaviour, status inconsistency, raising expectations, and relative
deprivation.

a) The mass society theorist, like Kornhauser (1959), is of the view that due
to the lack of an intermediate structure people in the mass society are
not integrated in the society. This leads to alienation, tension and
ultimately social protest. In the mass society individuals are related one
another not by variety of groups etc., but by their relation to a common
authority, i.e. the state. In the mass society, in the absence of independent
groups and associations people lack the resource to word off the threat
to their autonomy. In their absence people lack the resources to restrain
their own behaviour as well as that of others. Social atomization engenders
strong feelings of alienation and anxiety, and therefore, the disposition
to enagage extreme behaviour to escape from these tensions (Kornhauser
1996 : 92). It is pointed out that the mass society is conditioned by elite
domination over the mass. It replaces the democratic rule. In this society
individuals are objectively atomized and subjectively alienated. In this
system people are available for mobilization by elite. To Kornhauser
“alienation hightens responsiveness to the appeal of mass movements
because they provide the occasions for expressing resentment against
what is, as well as promises of a totally different world. In short, people
who are atomized readily become mobilized” (Ibid: 92).
184
b) The proponents of the theory of status inconsistency, like Broom (1959)
and Lenski (1954), are of the view that the objective discrepancy between
persons ranking and status (dimension e.g., education, income,
occupation) generate subjective tensions in the society leading to
cognitive dissonance, discontent and protest. The state of severe status
discrepancy, according to these scholars, lead to subjective tensions and
dissonance. According to Geschwender (1971) the set of circumstances
described by the status inconsistency hypothesis would produce varying
intensities of dissonance and dissonance-reducing behaviour according to
the degree of discrepancy between relevant status dimensions (cf. Mc
Adam 1973 : 136).
c) The theory structural strain as propagated by Smelser, Lang and Lang,
Turner and Killian suggests that any severe structural strain can help
manifest social movements. To Smelser the more severe the strain, the
more likelihood of social movements. In general it is argued that there are
sequences leading to the manifestation of social movements. These
sequences move from structural weakness due to the strain in society
leading to psychological disturbances and ultimately to the manifestations
of social movements. There are, however variety of reasons behind the
structural strain. Individuals experience strain out of disruption in the
normal functioning of the society. this disruption may be caused by the
process of industrialization, urbanization, migration, increase in
unemployment. The increase in the quantum of disruption is positively
related to the manifestation of social movement. In this perspective
social change is the source of structural strain. Social change is described
as stressful because it disrupts the normative order in which people are
accustomed leading to a feelings of anxiety, fantasy and hostility (Mc
Adam 1997). Thus in general this theory visualizes social movements as
collective relations to such strains that create severe tensions. Some
aggregate of there tensions reach reach to a “boiling” point triggering
social emergency. This model emphasizes wage on the psychological effect
that strain has on individuals than on the desire for a political goal (Ibid)
In this context it is important to mention here that Smelson has
highlighted the significance of the generalized beliefs’ in conjunction
with other five factors - structural conduciveness, structural strain, a
precipitating factor, mobilization of the participants for action, and the
failure of social control are necessary conditions for a collective episode
(Smelson, cf. Walsh 1978: 156)
Thus the classical model has observed social movements as response to
structural strain, it is concerned with the psychological effect that stain
has on individual and that collective participation in the movement is
guided by urgent psychological pressure and not by the aim to change the
political structure. (McAdam, D. 1996: 135-143)
d) The theory of Relative Deprivation has been got a place of prominence
in the social movement study. In the Marxian analysis economic deprivation
has been identified to be the prime cause of social conflict among the
two antagonistic classes i.e. the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. To Aberle
(1966) deprivation has also non-material base e.g. status, behaviour, worth
etc. Relative deprivation, i.e., the discrepancy between legitimate
expectations and the reality is the central point of social movement. Gurr
(1970) has perceived deprivation as a gap between expectations and
perceived capabilities involving three generalised sets of values: economic
conditions, political power and social status (cf.Rao, 1982)
e) The theory of Cultural Revitalization. As propagated by Wallace (1956)
expresses the view that social movements are manifested out a deliberate,
organised and conscious action of the member of the society to construct
a more satisfying culture for themselves. To him, the revitalization
185
 movements undergo four phase of progression: from cultural stability to
increased individual stress to cultural distortion and disillusionment to
cultural revitalization.

It is to mention here that no element of strain and deprivation alone can

produce a movement unless there is a subjective perception about these
objective conditions of deprivation. Ideology, organization and leadership play
crucial role towards the manifestation and sustenance of social movements.
We shall be dealing with the issues in the next section of this unit.

Reflection and Action 29.2

You must have seen several discontents to get collectively manifested in your
society. Are all these discontents being termed as social movements? What are
their origins?

29.4 Components of Social Movements

Conventionally ideology, collective mobilisation, organisation and leadership
are identified to the vital elements of social movements. Ideology provides a
broad frame of action and collective mobilisation in the social movement. It
also provides legitimacy to the process of interest articulation organized
collective action. There are different ways of formulating ideology in a social
movement. However, in the context of new social movements role of ideology
has been a subject of close scrutiny. Some aspects of this issue we shall
discuss in the next unit.

Collective mobilization is again a central element of a social movement. The

nature and direction of a social movement is widely shaped by the nature of
collective mobilisation. Collective mobilisation may be radical, non-
institutionalized, spontaneous, large scale or it may be non-violent,
institutionalized, sporadic, restricted. It may also undergo a process of
transformation from radical to reformative or institutionalized. Routinisation
of charisma is an illustration to this point.

Leadership and organization are closely linked to the process of collective

mobilisation. A leader can be charismatic figure or a democratically elected
one. In the context of new social movements the issues of leadership,
organization ideology and collective mobilisation have acquired several new
dimensions.

For years, social movements as an area of legitimate sociological research have

occupied a position of marginality both in the functionalist and Marxist
paradigm. For the functionalists social movements were sources of potential
disruption to an entity. Here only by assigning a marginal position to social
movements was ‘integrity of the functional theoretical system ensured. On
the other hand, though the Marxist analysis is concerned with social
transformation, this has identified the “classes” as the sole agents of social
transformation. Non-class movements are viewed critically, and sometimes with
contempt or hostility’ (Scott, A. 1990: 2). Over the years, however, these
single order explanations have proved to be inadequate in analyzing the
complexity of the phenomena of social movements, and a vast body of literature
has emerged in this emerging area of social inquiry. These studies have made
sincere efforts to comprehend the issues and dynamics of social movements
by using cases from various parts of the world. Significantly, the dynamics and
components of the social movements—ideological orientation, organizational
set-up, patterns of mobilization, leadership, tactics of collective action, issues
involved in the social movements and their linkages with the wider social
processes and so on—are critically scrutinized through their efforts to explain
the phenomena of collective mobilization with new perspective(s). Thus in
186 these efforts of the social scientists there has been not only the quest for
identification of the ‘newness’ in the emerging social movements of the 1960s
and thereafter, but also a genuine urge to locate the various elements of
commonalties in these episodes.

New Components: New ideals, Collective identities and Resources

In the context of the emergence of new social movements the issues of
values, culture, subjectivity, idealism, morality, identity, empowerment, etc.,
have got new coinage and added prominence in these efforts. Thus Bertaux
(1990) adds the view that ‘subjectivity’ and ‘idealism’ are essential elements
of social movement and must be taken seriously.

Similarly, social movements help generate a sense of collective identity and

new ideas. Melucci has emphasized on collective identity formation in the
context of new social movements. To him, social movements grow around
relationships of new social identity that are voluntarily conceived ‘to empower’
members in defense of this identity (Melucci, 1996). Eyerman and Jamison
(1991) assert that ‘by articulating consciousness, social movement provides
public spaces for generating new thoughts, activating new actors, generating
new ideas (1991: 161–66). To Hegedus (1990) involvement in an action is a
matter of conscience and emotion, of responsibility (1990: 266).

However participation in social movements may not necessarily always be for

the quest of an identity; rather, it may be for the gratification of political and
material interests. Tilly (1978a): McAdam (1982), Tarrow (1994 and many others
are of the view that social movements manifest in response to the increase
in the potential political opportunities and growing receptivity of the state to
the activities of the challenging groups. In general, these scholars emphasize
on the various resources involved in the manifestation and operationalisation
of social movements.) Tilly (1978a) for example identifies collective action in
terms of the pursuit of common interest, which is typical of social movements.
This approach, known as resource mobilization, assumes that collective actions
are related to the specific opportunity structures. Here importance is given
on the rationality of human action, whereby the participants in the social
movement calculate the costs and benefits of their participatory action in
collective mobilization. In this approach social movements are seen ‘either as
the creation of entrepreneurs skillful in the manipulation or mobilization of
social resources or the playing out the social tensions and conflicts’. Thus the
motivation of the actors is seen as rational economic action. The resource
mobilization theory, indeed, aims to interpret those sets of social movements
that are the visible parts of the American social reality in management terms.
It is linked to the policy problem of containment (47).

Reflection and Action 29.3

Critically analyze the relevance of identity and ideology in social movements.

29.5 Transformation of Social Movements

Every social movement is having a life history and undergoes a process of
transformation. The movement may emerge to be routinised accompanying a
decline in support for a movement, (Clark, Grayson & Grayson 1975: 19). Such
process of transformation of the movement is indeed contextual and cultures,
polity and economy specific. Zald studied transformation to social movements
in the comparative frame. He finds that the process of transformation of social
movements in the United States and Western Europe has been oriented to be
reformist while in the Eastern Europe social movement transformed itself into
regime challenges (Zald 1988: 19-24). It is observed in the developed societies
that in the absence of a shared culture of popular opposition to the authorities
and powerful groups, in the absence of a grass-roots organisation structure,
lack of space for unconventional tactics and likely co-option of the dissidents 187
 and critics by the state, collective mobilization are not sustained for a larger
time (Obserchall 1978, Gamson 1975, Walsh 1978). Here most of the social
movements are institutionalized in nature.

The emergence of a ‘national social movement’ from within the institutionalized

frame of reference of the state, as pointed out by Tilly (1998), “a social
movement is neither a party nor a union but a political campaign. What we call
a social movement actually consists in a series of demands or challenges to
power-holders in the name of a social category that lacks an established political
position” (Tilly 1985: 735-36).
As pointed out earlier, ideology, organization, leadership, subjectivity, idealism
and orientation towards change are important components of social movements
and closely attached to the process of collective mobilization and new identity
formation. Change in the form of these components brings tremendous change
in the character of the social movements, and accordingly social movements
may also be categorized. P.N. Mukherjee (1979) categorizes social movement
as ‘revolutionary movement’ and ‘quasi-movement’ based the nature and
direction of change initiated by the process of collective mobilization (in a
movement under reference). To him, when collective mobilization aims at
effecting wide-ranging and far-reaching changes of a system it may be called
a revolutionary movement, and when it aims for changes within a system only
it may be called a quasi-movement. Sociologists observing the life histories of
various social movements point out that sooner or later a social movement
becomes subject to the process of routinization. Often a protest movement
starts off with a radial ideology but develops its own establishment in turn.
To Rao (1985), when a movement with a defined ideology becomes a well-
established political party, it ceases to be a movement (1985: 251).
SinghaRoy(1992) highlights that in the Indian context any attempt to analyze
social movements ought to reflect upon the dynamics of the movements over
a period of time since the transformation of these movements are not discreet.
Rather, the ideological re-orientation and organizations of those movements
continue to remain attached with the collective mobilization in one form or
the other. Thus over a period of time there is the process of institutionalization
of mobilization. T.K. Oommen (1994) points out that the processes of
mobilization and institutionalization do co-exist, and that ‘institutionalization
provides new possibilities of mobilization’. According to him, the processes of
institutionalization and mobilization are to be viewed essentially to be the
two different phases of a movement ‘rather than mutually inimical processes
… In the final analysis mobilization is not displaced by institutionalization but
goes hand-in-hand to a large extent and often the later process accentuates
the former’ (Oommen 1994: 251-53). (We shall discuss this issue in unit to 32
again)
The process of institutionalization, according to Oommen (1984), refers to a
‘socially prescribed system of differentiated behaviour based on a relatively
stable interaction pattern hinged on socially accepted values, norms, roles and
practices’. While studying the process of institutionalization of collective
mobilization he emphasized the role of institutional entrepreneurs towards
the process of institutionalization. He however visualizes a contradiction in
the institutional role of such entrepreneurs, as all may not accept their
initiatives. Thus to him institutionalization of mobilization may not lead to
bureaucratization, formalization or a status quo. It may rather bring ‘with it
possibilities of change, because the value–dissensus it creates may eventually
lead to confrontation between the contending collectivities which provide
the potential for continuous change’ (Oommen 1984: 234-5). In his study of
the agrarian labour movement in Kerala he highlights that the emergence of
movement organization leading to routinization of charisma, development of
bureaucratic structure, emergence of a parallel elite, persistence of mobilization
beyond the purpose for which it emerged, invariably lead to the
institutionalization of social movement. He argues that ‘there is no inherent
188
tendency towards institutionalization of a social movement even when it
occurs, it does not necessarily stop or even decelerate the process of
mobilization which is so fundamental and prime to the very survival of a
movement’. To him mobilization implies a collective action affecting the quality
of politics. It calls for the ‘induction of new structure into the system to
meet the new challenges. That is mobilization necessitates the creation of
new institutions and their institutionalization’. He also finds that mobilization
is a continuous process with a varying scale and intensity over a period of
time (Oommen 1984: 238).
While examining the issues of transformation of social movements in India, the
observation made by Bipin Chandra (1996) in the context of the Indian national
movement is worth mentioning. He highlights that this movement ‘derived’ its
entire force from the militancy and spirit of self-sacrifice of the masses,
including a large section of the peasantry and small landlords. This movement
followed the strategy of truce-struggle-truce, in which phases of extra-legal
mass movements alternate with more passive phases carried on within the
confines of legal space. To Chandra, this strategy of Gandhi had the capacity
to utilize the constitutional space without getting co-opted, and to maintain
contacts with the masses and absorb their creative energies. This strategy,
according to Chandra, bears close resemblance to the strategy of war of position
as put forward by Gramsci. Gramsci saw India’s political struggle against English
as containing three forms of war: war of movement, war of position and
underground warfare. Gandhi’s passive resistance was a war of position, which
in certain movements becomes war of movement and in others, underground
warfare. Boycotts are a form of war of position, strikes are war of movement,
the secret preparation of weapons and combat troops belong to underground
warfare (Gramsci 1996: 23).(1998)
The Indian National Congress accepted the strategy of war of position, which
had two basic thrusts. It was hegemonic and it alternated between phases of
extra-legal mass struggle and phases of truce functioning within the law. This
entire political process of ‘truce-struggle-truce’ was an upwardly spiraling one
which also assumed that the freedom struggle would pass through several
stages ending with the transfer of power by the colonial regime (Chandra
1996: 26–9).

Reflection and Action 29.3

From you known experience or bases on secondary source of information write
a life history of transformation of a social movement in about 500 words.

29.6 Conclusion
In this introductory unit of this block we have raised several issues for discussion
which would be dealt with in the remaining three units of the block. As the
outset we have clarified the meaning and dimensions of social movements.
The conversional modes of conceptualization of social movements, the shift
in this mode since lats 1950s, the emergence of new social movements, the
European, American and the Indian orientation of social movement studies are
discussed here. We have also examined the issues origin and vital elements of
social movements. A brief discussion on social movement studies in Indian is
also presented in this block.

Further Readings
1. Shah, G. (ed.) 2004 Social Movements. Sage Publication: New Delhi
2. SinghaRoy, D.K. 2004 Peasant Movements in Post Colonial India: Dynamic
of Mobilisation and Identity; Sage Publication: New Delhi
3. Singh, R. 2003 Social Movements, Old and New. Sage Publication: New
Delhi 189
UNIT 11 REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS AND
SOCIAL CHANGE
Structure
11.1 Introduction
11.2 The Making of a Revolution
11.2.1 Revolution as a Part of Social Change
11.2.2 Causes of Revolution
11.3 Successful Revolutions
11.3.1 Mexico
11.3.2 Bolivia
11.3.3 Cuba
11.3.4 Nicaragua
11.4 Comparative Analysis
11.5 Summary
11.6 Exercises

11.1 INTRODUCTION
Revolutionary movements are harbingers of radical transformations not only politically, but also
socially, economically and culturally. In Latin America, the term revolution is more often defined
very loosely. It is related to violence, social change or regime change and has even been used in
the context of military authoritarian rule. There are four very conspicuous revolutions that can be
considered successful in the 20th Century—Mexico (1910), Bolivia (1952), Cuba (1959), and
Nicaragua (1979). However, these are considered very rare amongst the wide range and variety
of revolutionary movements in Latin America. For, these revolutions have had a tremendous
impact not just within those countries and the Latin American region, but on the hemispheric
relations and world politics as well. To understand the accompanying social change, it is essential
to discuss the causes, course, and outcome of the Latin American revolutions, especially highlighting
the peculiarities of Latin American revolutions. Apart from the four successful revolutions, there
are other revolutionary movements in Latin America, which are not considered successful such
as the Farabundo Marti National Liberation (FMLN) movement of El Salvador and the Sendero
Luminoso (“Shining Path”) movement of Peru. This unit gives a brief view of the number and
variety of revolutions witnessed in Latin America, drawing attention to the similarities as well as
the peculiarities of such movements.

11.2 THE MAKING OF A REVOLUTION

11.2.1 Revolution as a Part of Social Change
Many factors that contribute to social change fall in the category of “social mobilisation” i.e.
urbanisation, education, mass communication and rising expectations. One factor is the circulation
of new ideas imported from other societies (like liberalism at the turn of the 19th Century and
Marxism at the turn of the 20th Century) or revived from the pre-conquest eras (like Mexican

1
indigenismo/nativism or Nicaraguan Sandinismo) gives a sense of direction to sporadic and
unfocussed social unrest.

Another factor contributing to social change are agents of social change be it foreigners with new
ambitions, Latin Americans associated with new institutions or old institutions assuming new
roles. Students, Catholic clergymen inspired by the Liberation Theology can be taken as an
example. Pressure for change may also be generated by natural disasters, wars, or reaction by
the ruling class to a minor incident or protest.

If the political elite is able to share power and incorporate new groups, social change will evolve
naturally. But if the elite is unwilling to share and tries to repress the changes, they may take the
form of revolution or counter-revolution. While revolution does not result in the displacement of
previous systems and participants of the system, revolution involves displacement or dis-
establishment of groups representing the upper strata of society. In counter-revolution, it is the
groups from the lower strata of society, which are displaced from effective participation in power
politics.

In the case of Latin America, the social distance to be bridged in the incorporation of new groups
into the polity in the southern cone countries of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay were not very
great. This region was not rich in gold and silver and not very exploitable by the colonisers. It was
thus settled by Europeans relatively late and also the first to win independence. The population at
the time of independence was mostly mestizo and homogeneous. Effective working class
participation and thoroughgoing redistribution came about through the evolutionary process. Thus
economic elite (foreign and domestic) with middle class support backed by the dominant foreign
power and the armed forces silenced the lower classes. But in countries like Mexico, Cuba,
Nicaragua and Bolivia, it was more a revolutionary change accompanying violent confrontation.

11.2.2 Causes of Revolution

As we have seen, revolution is a part of social change. But social change or mobilisation does not
in itself lead to a revolution even though it does add to the pressure leading towards it. It is only
when there are impediments to an evolutionary change that a revolution occurs. There are many
reasons or factors that explain impediments to change.

A low level of political participation, with a great social distance between the elite and the masses
is an important factor. The traditional hierarchical structure of society in Latin America with its
attendant economic problems has always led to popular discontent. The social hierarchical structure
of small elite of European origin with their proximity to foreign powers is vulnerable to the slightest
change in the traditional system of authority. Thus the elite would not tolerate any breakdown of
this system. Rather than accept marginal change and welcome the development of a middle class
that might play a brokerage role, the elite strive to maintain status quo and a vacuum in the
centre. This ensures that they do not have to allow concessions to middle or lower classes.

Even after independence from European powers, Latin American countries were overwhelmed
by foreign domination. Independence was a mere exchange of one master for another. The ruling
aristocracy were eager to ensure their security under the clout of a strong country even at the
cost of national sovereignty. Major corporations of the United States became an integral part of
the power elite of those countries and the US had made it clear that it would intervene militarily

2
to protect its economic interests. This meant that relatively few families had economic interests
to protect and very few had a stake in political order. Thus the US had emerged as the dominant
force in Latin America.

Another factor was the physical uprooting of the peasants and the indigenous population in Latin
America. The indigenous peoples had been displaced from their traditional territory by Hispanic
elites or the US corporations and thus, were deprived of their communally held land. Much of the
unrest was a direct result of alienation.

All of these factors resulted in a multi-class alliance in opposition to the ruling elite particularly in
Cuba and Nicaragua and to a large extent in Mexico, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.
Most of the Latin American revolutionary movements thus had this in common that they were
multi-class popular movements largely agrarian in nature and with no fixed ideology that can be
stated to be a common factor.

11.3 SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTIONS

11.3.1 Mexican Revolution
In the Mexican political arena of the late 19th Century, the caudillo regime of Porfirio Diaz or
Porfiriato was marked by the systematic violation of the principles of the constitution of 1857.
He believed that dictatorship was essential to transform a backward nation into a modern one. It
was believed that Mexico’s economic development depended on attracting foreign capital through
special subsidies and concessions. By 1910, US interests controlled 75 per cent of Mexican
mines, 72 per cent of metal industry, 68 per cent of the rubber business and 58 per cent of the oil
production. Other foreigners controlled 80 per cent of the rest of Mexico’s industry. Not only
did Díaz court foreign interests, he allowed the clergy to become openly influential in temporal
matters, and gave the army a free hand to violate guaranteed civil liberties. Opponents of the
regime were either coopted or sent to jail.

Francisco Ignacio Madero, the son of a hacendado, issued the Plan of San Luis Potosí in
October 1910 asking for political reform and the restoration of democratic principles. The Plan
was enthusiastically received. By January 1911, a large-scale insurrection had broken out in the
northern state of Chihuahua, led by Pascual Orozco, a local merchant, and Francisco “Pancho”
Villa. Madero, who had declared himself provisional president in the Plan of San Luis Potosí
returned to Mexico to lead the nascent revolution. The successes of the rebel bands in Chihuahua
sparked similar uprisings throughout the country. As early as 1909 in Morelos, the peasant leader,
Emiliano Zapata, recruited thousands of hacienda labourers and landless peasants to attack the
haciendas and reclaim the lost lands. By May 25, 1911, Porfirio Diaz submitted his resignation
and turned power over to a provisional government.

Madero assumed the presidency in November 1911. The new administration faced insurmountable
problems. The fall of Díaz raised popular expectations of far-reaching social reforms, especially
land reform. Zapata had come to Mexico City to claim hacienda land for the peasants of Morelos,
which to him was the only acceptable result of the overthrow of the Díaz regime. Even in the

3
revolutionary ranks, the revolution meant something different to different sections of the population.
Madero soon realised that to the liberals, the Revolution meant political change, but to the
revolutionary fighters it meant radical social and economic transformations that Madero would
not be able to fulfill. Labour unrest continued and even the Zapatista faction revolted.

Revolutionaries from other areas began to challenge the new government. Meanwhile, Félix Díaz
(Porfirio’s nephew) and other counter-revolutionaries plotted a military coup. With the aid of
loyal troops under Huerta, Madero initially resisted the Díaz forces, but Huerta changed sides
and defeated Madero. Opposition to Huerta began to emerge once he assumed power. Zapata
and others remained in revolt against Huerta. The latter responded by increasing the size of the
military. The country faced other problems. The federal treasury was empty, and each faction
began issuing its own currency. Importantly, Huerta’s government had not been recognised by
the United States. By 1914, Huerta had to resign.

After the fall of Huerta, the country went through another period of civil war and anarchy in
which four governments claimed to represent the will of the people: Carranza in Veracruz, Obregón
in Mexico City, Roque González Garza (supported by the Zapatistas), and Villa in Guanajuato.
Later that year, Carranza emerged as the victorious commander of the revolutionary forces with
the support of the US. Carranza presented his draft of a constitution to the congress. The final
version of the constitution of 1917, however, gave additional rights to the Mexican people. It
was the fruit of the Revolution—an expression of popular will that guaranteed civil liberties, no
presidential succession, and protection from foreign and domestic exploitation to all Mexicans.

After formally accepting the Constitution of 1917, Carranza won the presidential election and
was sworn into office on 1 May, 1917. Conditions in Mexico were again close to chaos: the
economy had deteriorated during the years of civil war, communications had been seriously
disrupted, and shortages had led to rampant inflation. Land and labour remained the basic issues
for the Mexican people, but Carranza chose to overlook the constitutional provisions dealing
with these issues and returned lands expropriated during the Revolution. In 1918 fighting continued
in Morelos. The Zapatistas in that area, who had very specific grievances, wanted more than a
constitution. However, Carranza’s men killed Zapata on 10 April 1919. By 1920 the Mexican
Revolution was over with Carranza too being eliminated and General Obregon coming to power.

11.3.2 Bolivian Revolution (1952-1964)

Most of the countries of Latin America had suffered greatly during the Great Depression and
Bolivia was no exception. Added to that were the after-effects of the Chaco War (1932-1935)
in Bolivia which created outrage amongst the Bolivian population. The War was a result of a
border skirmish in the disputed Chaco region with Paraguay. The war effort mobilised a large
part of the population of indigenous and mestizo peasants, and created a lot of dissatisfaction
and social ferment. So much so, the so-far ineffectual left wing could galvanise an outrage against
the political system that had produced a war. Several political parties were formed including
three socialist parties and two pro-fascist parties. The most talented leadership was from the
National Revolutionary Movement (MNR), which dropped its fascist tendencies. In 1952, after
years of repression of the middle class from the right wing rulers, the MNR organised a revolt
against the regime.

4
Under Paz Estenssoro’s presidency in July 1952, the government established universal suffrage,
with neither literacy nor property requirements thus increasing the population of eligible voters.
The government also moved quickly to control the armed forces, purging many officers associated
with past conservative party regimes and drastically reducing the forces’ size and budget.

The government then began the process of nationalising all mines of the three great tin companies
turning two-thirds of Bolivia’s mining industry over to a semi-autonomous enterprise to run state-
owned mines, the Mining Corporation of Bolivia (Comibol).

This was followed by a far-reaching agrarian reform. The government decreed the Agrarian
Reform Law, which abolished forced labour and established a programme of expropriation and
distribution of the rural property of the traditional landlords to the Indian peasants. Only estates
with low productivity were distributed. More productive small and medium-sized farms were
allowed to keep part of their land and were encouraged to invest new capital to increase agricultural
production.

During the first years of the revolution, miners wielded extraordinary influence within the government
based on the miners’ decisive role in the fighting of April 1952. Miners organised the Bolivian
trade union federation (Central Obrera Boliviana—COB), which demanded radical change as
well as participation in the government and benefits for its members. The peasants also exerted a
powerful influence and the MNR eventually gained control of the peasants.

During the presidency of Siles Zuazo (1956-60) the United States economic aid reached its
highest level. Advised by the United States government and the IMF, the Siles Zuazo regime then
in power reduced inflation with a number of politically dangerous measures, such as the freezing
of wages.

Conflicts within the MNR increased during Paz Estenssoro’s second term (1960-64). Paz
Estenssoro endorsed the “Triangular Plan,” which called for a restructuring of the tin-mining
industry demanding the end of the workers’ control over Comibol operations, the retrenchment
of workers, and a reduction in their salaries and benefits which was strongly opposed by the
COB. Moreover, rivalry among peasant groups often resulted in bloody feuds that further
weakened the Paz Estenssoro government.

The country faced severe economic problems as a result of the changes enacted by the
government. The nationalisation of the mines had a negative effect because of the lack of technical
expertise and capital to modernise the ageing plants. Agricultural production too faced a decline
in the first years of the revolution. Although anarchy in the countryside was the main reason for
the decrease in production, the peasants’ inability to produce for a market economy and the lack
of transport facilities contributed to the problem. High inflation, primarily caused by social spending,
also hurt the economy. The divisions within the MNR seriously weakened its attempt to incorporate
the support of the Indian peasants, the workers, and the middle class for the government. In
1952 the MNR was a broad coalition of groups with different interests. The bankrupt economy
increased the factionalism within the MNR. Because the majority of the MNR elite wanted a
moderate course and the left wing demanded radical change, the polarisation increased and
eventually led to the destruction of the MNR in 1964.

During its twelve-year rule, the MNR had failed to build a firm basis for democratic, civilian

5
government. Increasing factionalism, open dissent, ideological differences, policy errors, and
corruption weakened the party and made it impossible to establish an institutional framework for
the reforms. Not even the peasants, who were the main beneficiaries of the revolution, consistently
supported the MNR.

The MNR had succeeded because it could unify several major political forces of the country: the
miners, the armed forces and large sections of the middle class and the peasants, which was the
fourth group that emerged after the revolution. The MNR failed for the same reason—it was
unable to maintain this coalition.

11.3.3 Cuban Revolution

The Cuban revolution was a unique phenomenon in many respects. It revolved around the personal
charisma of Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who successfully carried out a guerrilla warfare that
overthrew the military regime of Fulgencio Batista. The aim of the revolutionaries was to
redistribute wealth through land reform and Communism. By late 1960, the state owned a
significant portion of the means of production. The sense of nationalism led the revolutionaries to
turn to socialism away from the United States.

Thus power in Cuba was seized without a revolutionary theory or party, whereas Communism
necessitated the presence of both. It was only later in December 1961 that a revolutionary party
began to be formed. The first party Congress was held thirteen years later.

In the first sixteen years of the revolution, the Communist Party played no important role but
concentrated on the development of mass mobilisation of labour, women, students, farmers and
defenders of the revolution. The role of the Party when it was institutionalised in 1975 was simply
to co-ordinate and supervise the tasks of the state and mass organisations without administering
them. The Communist Party became the locus of political power. The Party, the State and the
Government are thus functionally differentiated.

The revolutionaries had inherited a capitalist economy that relied on sugar production controlled
in its numerous facets by the US capital as well as an economy that was unable to generate
sufficient jobs to absorb surplus labour. In the first two years after the revolution itself, house
rents were lowered by as much as 50 per cent, free universal education established, social
security made available to all workers, Agrarian Reform Law began the redistribution of land,
transportation costs were lowered, and child care centres were subsidised by the state. Critical
areas of the economy like banking, export-import operations, and energy were taken over by
the state. More than three-quarters of the industry, construction and transportation too was in the
hands of the state. Soon health care too became free. Since Cuba did not have material incentives,
moral incentives were used to motivate workers. Charismatic authority went hand in hand with
moral incentives and mass mobilisation to achieve economic goals. From 1970s, there was a
shift towards rational-legal authority in both political and economic spheres.

11.3.4 Nicaraguan Revolution

The dictatorship established under General Anastasio Somoza García in Nicaragua was one of
the most enduring in Central America’s political history. The most basic reasons for the success
of the Somoza dynasty was its control of the US-created National Guard, a mixed military-

6
police force that monopolised armed power within Nicaragua and a constant cultivation of US
support. As long as the economy continued to grow and the traditional elite and the opposition
parties got a share in the profits, they largely accepted this state of affairs. The devastating
earthquake of 1972 almost caused a breakdown of this entire structural set up, but the system
managed to survive with US support. This only served to increase the popular discontent with
the Somoza regime. The Sandinista National Liberation Front guerrillas (FSLN) increased their
activities. The killing of Nicaragua’s leading newspaper publisher and opposition ruler Carlos
Fonseca Amador in January 1978 by Somoza’s business associates resulted in national defiance
and international indignation. A series of popular uprisings and heavy fighting by the FSLN along
with international opposition compounded the dictator’s problems.

A mediation process led by the OAS collapsed during January 1979, when president Somoza
refused to hold a national plebiscite and insisted on staying in power until 1981. As fighting
increased, the Nicaraguan economy faced a severe economic crisis, with a sharp decline in
agricultural and industrial production, as well as high levels of unemployment, inflation, defence
spending, and capital flight. The government debt also increased mostly as a result of defence
expenditures and the gradual suspension of economic support from all international financial
institutions.

On 1 February 1979, the Sandinistas established the National Patriotic Front (Frente Patriótico
Nacional—FPN), which included Los Doce, the PLI, and the Popular Social Christian Party
(Partido Popular Social Cristiano—PPSC). The FSLN launched its final offensive during May,
just as the National Guard began to lose control of many areas of the country. In a year’s time,
bold military and political moves had changed the FSLN from one of many opposition groups to
a leadership role in the anti-Somoza revolt. On 19 July 1979 the Sandinistas entered Managua
bringing to an end the longest lasting family dictatorship in the Latin American history.

The five-member junta consisting of Daniel José Ortega Saavedra of the FSLN, Moisés Hassan
Morales of the FPN, Sergio Ramírez Mercado of Los Doce, Alfonso Robelo Callejas of the
MDN, and Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, the widow of La Prensa’s editor entered the
Nicaraguan capital and assumed power, reiterating its pledge to work for political pluralism, a
mixed economic system, and a non-aligned foreign policy.

The new government inherited a country in ruins, with a stagnant economy and a debt of about
US$1.6 billion. Most Nicaraguans saw the Sandinista victory as an opportunity to create a
system free of the political, social, and economic inequalities of the almost universally hated
Somoza regime.

The first or immediate goal of the new government was the reconstruction of the national economy.
The new government enacted the Agrarian Reform Law, beginning with the nationalisation of all
rural properties owned by the Somoza family and their associates representing more than 20 per
cent of Nicaragua’s cultivable land. These farms became state property under the new Ministry
of Agrarian Reform. Financial institutions, all in bankruptcy from the massive capital flight during
the war, were also nationalised.

The second goal of the Sandinistas was a change in the old government’s pattern of repression
and brutality. Most prisoners accused of injustices under the Somoza regime were given a trial

7
and the Ministry of Interior forbade cruelty to prisoners. Amnesty International and other human
rights groups found the human rights situation in Nicaragua greatly improved.

The third major goal of the country’s new leaders was the establishment of new political institutions
to consolidate the revolution. This was done by abolishing the constitution, presidency, Congress,
and all courts through the proclamation of the Fundamental Statute of the Republic of Nicaragua
on 22 August 1979. The junta ruled under emergency powers. National government policy,
however, was generally made by the nine-member Joint National Directorate (Dirección Nacional
Conjunto—DNC), the ruling body of the FSLN. A consultative corporatist representative assembly,
the Council of State approved laws submitted to it by the junta. The junta, however, had the
right of veto and retained control over much of the budget. The membership of the junta changed
during its early years. By 1983 the junta was reduced to three members, with Daniel Ortega
clearly playing the lead role.

Immediately after the revolution, the Sandinistas had the best-organised and most experienced
military force in the country, a new national army, the Sandinista People’s Army (Ejército Popular
Sandinista—EPS), as well as a police force, the Sandinista Police (Policía Sandinista—PS). The
FSLN also developed mass organisations representing most popular interest groups in Nicaragua
which were instrumental in consolidating Sandinista power over political and military institutions—
the Sandinista Workers’ Federation (Central Sandinista de Trabajadores—CST) representing
labour unions, the Luisa Amanda Espinoza Nicaraguan Women’s Association (Asociación de
Mujeres Nicaragüenses Luisa Amanda Espinoza—AMNLAE), and the National Union of
Farmers and Cattlemen (Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos—UNAG) composed of
small farmers and peasants.

The new Sandinista government was not universally welcomed. On the domestic front, the ethnic
minorities from the Caribbean coast rejected Sandinista efforts to incorporate them into the
national mainstream. The United States government accused the government of supplying arms
to guerrillas in El Salvador and even supported groups of counter-revolutionaries known as
Contras. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church distrusted the Sandinista ideology and
although supportive of the anti-Somoza movement during the late 1970s, opposed the Sandinista
regime in the 1980s.

In mid-1984, the Electoral Law was passed setting the date and conditions for the election. By
July 1984, eight parties or coalitions had announced their intention to field candidates: the FSLN
with Daniel Ortega as presidential candidate; the Democratic Coordinator (Coordinadora
Democrática: CD), a broad coalition of labour unions, business groups, and four centrist parties;
and six other parties—the PLI, the PPSC, the Democratic Conservative Party (Partido
Conservador Demócratic: PCD), the communists, the socialists, and the Marxist-Leninist Popular
Action Movement. On 4 November 1984, about 75 per cent of the registered voters went to the
polls. The FSLN won 67 per cent of the votes, the presidency, and sixty-one of the ninety-six
seats in the new National Assembly.

Daniel Ortega began his six-year presidential term on 10 January 1985. The Reagan administration
ordered a total embargo on United States trade with Nicaragua the following month, accusing
the Sandinista regime of threatening United States security in the region. The FSLN government
responded by suspending civil liberties. The media of the church as well as the conservative

8
newspaper La Prensa were censored or closed for various periods and the Sandinista government
was forced to divert more and more of its economic resources from economic development to
defence against the Contras.

An additional step toward the solution of the Nicaraguan conflict was taken at a summit of
Central American presidents held on 15 January 1988, when President Daniel Ortega agreed to
hold direct talks with the Contras, to lift the state of emergency, and to call for national elections.
In March the FSLN government met the representatives of the Contras and signed a cease-fire
agreement. By mid-1988, international institutions had demanded that the Sandinistas launch a
drastic economic adjustment programme as a condition for resumption of aid. This new economic
programme imposed further hardship on the Nicaraguan people. With the country becoming
bankrupt and the loss of economic support from the economically strapped Soviet Union, the
Sandinistas decided to move up the date for general elections in order to convince the United
States Congress to end all aid to the Contras and to attract potential economic support from
Europe and the United States.

The FSLN government reinstated political freedoms. Many Nicaraguans expected the country’s
economic crisis to deepen and the Contra conflict to continue if the Sandinistas remained in
power. In contrast, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro promised to end the unpopular military draft,
bring about democratic reconciliation, and promote economic growth and won in the 25 February
1990, elections. The FSLN accepted its new role of opposition and handed over political power
to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro and the UNO coalition on 25 April 1990.

11.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Generally, successful revolutions (which run through a course without falling prey to a counter-
revolution) go through certain definitive phases like transfer of power, redistribution of resources,
institutionalisation of the change, and reconstruction/reconcentration.
i) Power transfer: The process of power transfer is not an easy one. The displacement of the
old regime calls for its replacement with a new one. The process of reaching an agreement
on what kind of government the people want can be a struggle.

In Mexico, after the demise of the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz in 1911, armed struggle
continued for 10 years before power was consolidated. In Bolivia the National Revolutionary
Movement (MNR) which took power in 1952 could not sustain its alliance with the miners
and the peasants leading to the tenure of the revolution being very short. The MNR, miners
and the peasants could not gain control. In Cuba, consolidation of power was successful
because of the mass exodus of the upper class to the United States. In Nicaragua, the multi-
class coalition of 1979 began to unravel within the year. The upper class businessmen mobilised
in support of the Sandinistas turned to subversion along with the National Guardsmen hand-
in-glove with the United States.

ii) Class Demolition and Redistribution: For a revolution to be successful, the colonial
hegemonic power backing the ruling elite has to be displaced. This has varied from country
to country in Latin America. It means that the external hegemonic power is deprived of some

9
 of the points of access or direct participation in the domestic affairs of the country. In most
Latin American countries, the colonial powers and the landed aristocracy are the same.

In Mexico, the revolution dis-established the landowning aristocracy and the Church, which
had been a major landowner. It also weakened the business elite with an export-import
business and weakened the role of the United States in manipulating the domestic power
relationships, giving rise to a national industrial sector. In Bolivia, the landowning aristocracy
was displaced along with private interests controlling the tin mines. But in Bolivia, the
revolutionary forces accepted the help of the United States with strings attached, instead of
making it a target and accomplishment of the revolution. It is this, which became a factor in
nurturing a new military elite and the failure of the alliance amongst the revolutionary forces.
In Cuba, the US had a major stronghold and thus the revolution accordingly targeted the
United States and the military establishment that served it. The nationally oriented business
class in Cuba was extremely weak. In Nicaragua, the target was Somoza’s dictatorship, his
domestic supporters like the National Guard and the United States which was a benefactor
of the dynasty. The Catholic Church in Nicaragua at least to begin with was committed to the
revolutionary coalition.

Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of wealth in a revolution depends on how much

wealth is there to redistribute. Cuba was a prosperous country at the time of revolution.
Therefore redistribution took the form of the extension of services and Cuba had one of the
most comprehensive public health and educational systems in the hemisphere. In Bolivia and
Nicaragua, there was relatively little wealth to redistribute.

iii) Institutionalisation: The institutionalisation of a revolution requires an entirely new set of

political support groups as well as new constitutions, laws and behaviour patterns. The most
important umbrella organisation for new support groups is a political party. In Mexico, the
revolutionary political party took shape in 1929 and was reorganised in the 1930s and
1940s and renamed the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). For Bolivia, the MNR was
supposed to be the institutionalising vehicle. But the party did not succeed in incorporating
the miners or in institutionalising succession. Thus it succumbed 12 years later to counter-
revolution. For Cuba, the Communist Party and the revolutionary armed forces were the
dominant vehicles of institutionalisation with control in the hands of Fidel Castro. The national
political super structure was built on the base of popular organisations. In Nicaragua, the
Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), which began in 1959 as a tiny insurrectionary
group, was the dominant group at the time of revolutionary triumph. The Sandinista leadership
enjoyed strong support of the members of popular organisations representing workers,
peasants, women and youth.

iv) Reconstruction/Reconcentration: Revolutions like all other readjustments of power are

impermanent. Wealth and power tend to reconcentrate and the power and position of the
people from the lower strata of society begins to weaken.

In Mexico, revolutionary leaders became a ‘new class’—an economic and political power elite.
In Cuba, although Castro and his supporters have avoided an elite status, rank differentiation and
privileges have crept into what was once a people’s army. Nevertheless, it is generally perceived

10
that countries, which have undergone revolutions, tend to be more stable than those that have
not.

Latin American movements were undoubtedly multi-class in nature. All these movements may
not have equally led to social and political change of significance, but what made them revolutionary
was the way they involved the masses. The post-revolutionary elite too were state-builders but
they created a mass society instead of the factional and fragmented society that existed before.
Some historians have tried to downplay the popular and agrarian side of these revolutions but it
is clear especially in the case of Mexico, that there were massive and violent rural rebellions. Of
course, it cannot be equally clearly stated that the revolutions were ‘purely’ agrarian in nature.
Even the Mexican revolution had non-peasant leaders playing an important role. Pancho Villa’s
popular army from the North was very different from the peasant villagers who constituted the
core of Emiliano Zapata’s army from the South.

11.5 SUMMARY

Revolutionary movements in Latin America have been defined in a very loose manner and related
to violence, regime change, social change and even military authoritarian rule. This unit gives a
brief view of the more successful revolutionary movements in Latin America bringing out the
causes, main characteristics and the phases through which they evolved. In Latin America, a low
level of political participation and the great distance between the masses and the elite with the
elite striving to maintain status quo has always led to popular discontent. More so, the United
States of America has emerged as a dominant force in the sphere.

11.6 EXERCISES

1. How would you distinguish a revolutionary movement from other social movements? Giving
examples from Latin America explain what in your judgement may be termed as a relatively
‘successful revolution’.

2. What were the causes of revolutionary movements in Latin America?

3. How far would you consider the Bolivian revolution to be a success?

4. What are the similarities between the phases through which the Mexican Revolution of 1911
and the Cuban Revolution of 1959 evolved?

5. Briefly sketch the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and explain its limited success.

11
UNIT 10 STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY
Structure

10.1 Introduction
10.2 State and Civil Society: Meaning and Characteristics
10.2.1 Meaning of State
10.2.2 Meaning of Civil Society

10.2.3 Characteristics of State and Civil Society

10.3 Concept of the State: An Overview

10.3.1 The Pre-Modern Tradition
10.3.2 The Liberal-Individualist Tradition

10.3.3 The Marxian Tradition

10.4 Concept of Civil Society: An Overview

10.4.1 The Pre-modern Tradition
10.4.2 The Liberal-individualist Tradition

10.4.3 The Hegelian, Marxian and Gramscian Traditions

10.5 Relationship between State and Civil Society

10.5.1 State and Civil Society: Integrative Relationship

10.5.2 State, Civil Society and Democracy

10.6 Summary
10.7 Exercises

10.1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of state occupies a central place in Political Science. No discussion on political
theory is complete without reference to the word ‘state’. The state, indeed, touches every
aspect of human life, and this is why it has, very rightly, captured the attention of all political
philosophers since the days of Plato. To understand the state as an administrative machinery
ordering public life is to know its one aspect. Important though this aspect is, it is not the only
aspect which explains as to what it is. The state is where it operates on. Its real meaning
together with its other related implications emerges more clearly when it is understood in relation
to the domain of its area of operation, which is what society is.

What is state? What is society or civil society? What is the relationship between the two or how
do the two stand in relation to each other? What is so particular about civil society that gives
the state a different connotation? These questions have been, and actually are, central to the
themes of political theory and to these questions, answers have been addressed by numerous
political theorists.

A discussion on issues relating to these two terms, the state and civil society, would help us to
know their meanings, implications and the relative perspectives in which these two concepts
stand to each other.
13
 10.2 STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY: MEANING AND
CHARACTERISTICS
It is very common to address society as civil society, civil society as political society, political
society as state. To understand each as one or the other is to know none of them. While the
concept ‘society’ is a generic term, the term civil society denotes a type of society particular
to a time and set in a particular situation. ‘Society’ refers, in general terms, to the totality of
‘social relationships’, conscious or unconscious, deliberate or otherwise. ‘Civil Society’, on the
other hand, concerns itself to matters relating to ‘public’. This brings the term ‘civil society’
close to the concept of ‘political society’. Indeed, the two terms presuppose a society where
civility is their characteristic feature, but ‘civil society’ extends to areas far away from the
reach of ‘political society’. The institution of family, for example, is an area covered by ‘civil
society’, but it is a domain where ‘political society’ does better to stay away from. ‘Political
society’ covers a whole range of activities related to ‘political’ directly or indirectly, but it
remains wider than the term ‘state’ when the latter is treated merely as a matter of governance.

It is indeed, important to know the meanings of these terms clearly if one seeks to understand
the relationship between them, especially between the state and civil society.

10.2.1 Meaning of State

The state, as a word stato, appeared in Italy in the early part of the sixteenth century in the
writings of Machiavelli (1469-1527). The meaning of the state in the sense of a body politic
became common in England and France in the later part of the sixteenth century. The word
staatskunst became the German equivalent of ragione di stato during the seventeenth century
and a little later, the word staatrecht got the meaning of jus publican (see Sabine, “State”, The
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences Vol. XIV). Thus, came the use of the term ‘State’.

The state has included, from the beginning, a reference to a land and a people, but this alone
would not constitute a state. It refers also to a unity, a unity of legal and political authority,
regulating the outstanding external relationships of man in society, existing within society. It is
what it does, i.e., creates a system of order and control, and for this, is vested with the legal
power of using compulsion and coercion.

A state, thus, is found in its elaborate system. It is found in its institutions which create laws
and which enforce them, i.e., in institutions such as the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary. It is found in the bureaucratic institutions which are attached to every executive
branch of the government. It is found in the institutions which are called into operation when
its will is challenged, i.e., the military and the police. The state is the sum – total of these
institutions. Ralph Miliband (The State in Capitalist Society) writes, “These are the institutions
– the government, the administration, the military and the police, the judicial branch, sub-central
government and parliamentary assemblies – which make up the state…”. In these institutions
lies the state power; through these institutions come the laws of the state, and from them spring
the legal right of using physical force.

The state as governance is a system related to what may be called the political system or the
political society. It includes, on the one hand, institutions such as the political parties, pressure
groups, the opposition, etc., and on the other, large-scale industrial houses, religious and caste
institutions, trade unions, etc. These institutions, existing outside of the state system, attempt to

14
influence the functioning of the state, somewhere even dominating it, and somewhere in
collaboration with it. Skocpol (States and Social Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of
France, Russia and China) sums up what Neera Chandhoke (State and Civil Society) calls
the statist perspective of the state, “the state properly conceived …. is rather a set of
administrative, policing and military organizations headed, and more or less well coordinated by,
an executive authority. Any state first and fundamentally extracts resources from society and
deploys these to create and support coercive and administrative organizations…. Moreover,
coercive and administrative organizations are only parts of overall political systems. These
systems also may contain institutions through which social interests are represented in state
policy-making as well as institutions through which non-state actors are mobilised to participate
in policy implementation. Nevertheless, the administrative and coercive organisations are the
basis of state power.”

The other strand giving the state a meaning comes from Michael Foucault (‘Truth and Power’
in P. Rabinow, ed., The Foucalt Reader, 1987) who regards the state as built on power relations
already existing in society. Chandhoke writes about Foucault, “The state, he (Foucault) concluded,
can only operate on the basis of existing relations of domination and oppression in society.”

Rejecting both the perspectives of the state, Chandhoke says, “The statists (Skocpol and others)
concentrate on the state at the expense of society, and the theorists in the Foucauldian mode
concentrate on social interaction at the expense of the state.” She concludes that the state, with
a view to understanding it in relation to society, and vice-versa, “is a social relation because it
is the codified power of the social formation.”

10.2.2 Meaning of Civil Society

The concept of civil society, to give it a meaning, embraces an entire range of assumptions,
values and institutions, such as political, social and civil rights, the rule of law, representative
institutions, a public sphere, and above all a plurality of associations. Commenting on it, David
Held (Models of Democracy) stated that it retains “a distinctive character to the extent that
it is made up of areas of social life …. the domestic world, the economic sphere, cultural
activities and political interaction … which are organised by private or voluntary arrangements
between individuals, and groups outside the direct control of the state.” Adding to political
interaction, civil society constitutes what Jurgen Habermas called ‘the public sphere’. Enlarging
the view of civil society, one may include in it the structure of modern national state, economic
modernization, great interconnectedness with other societies, free enterprise and what John
Dunn (Western Political Theory) refers to as “the modern representative democratic republic.”

Chandhoke sums up the meaning of civil society “as the public sphere where individuals come
together for various purposes both for their self-interest and for the reproduction of an entity
called society.” “It is a”, she continues, “sphere which is public because it is formally accessible
to all, and in principle all are allowed entry into this sphere as the bearers of rights.”

The concept of civil society came up as and when a social community sought to organise itself
independently of the specific direction of state power. Historically, the concept, Chandhoke says,
“came into existence when the classical political economists sought to control the power of the
Mercantilist State”. With the passage of time, the concept of civil society moved on progressively:
becoming a central plank of democratic movements in eighteenth century.

15
 10.2.3 Characteristics of State and Civil Society
State exists within the society. This makes the state and society analytically distinct. The two
are not the same. Society is a web of social relationships and as such, includes the totality of
social practices, which are essentially plural, but at the same time, are relational. The hierarchically
organised and maintained social practices of a given community establish, in their turn, all kinds
of power equations and relations among its members. The state comes in to give these power
relations a fixity, and thereby to society its stability. The state gives legitimacy to social relationships
as expressed in social practices because it recognises them and codifies them through legal acts.
It is in this sense that the state can be described as the codified power of the social formation
of a given time.

The state, so considered, is itself a distinct and discrete organisation of power in so far as it
possesses the capacity to select, categorise, crystallise and arrange power in formal codes and
institutions. And this capacity gives to the state its status – power, power to take decisions,
power to enforce decisions, and also power to coerce those who defy them. But the state so
considered derives its power from society. It is, in this sense, a codified power, but within the
framework of the society in which it operates.

The state, as a social relation and also as a codified power in a given society, would have certain
characteristics of its own. These characteristics can be stated as:

a) The state is a power, organised in itself. It has the power to legitimise social relations and gives
them recognition through formal codes and institutions. This gives the state a distinct and
irreducible status in society while making it autonomous from classes and contending factions
existing in it.

b) The state emerges as a set of specifically political practices which defines binding decisions
and enforces them, to the extent of intervening in every aspect of social life.

c) The state monopolises all means of coercion. No other organisation in the society has this
power.

d) The state gives fixity to social relations, and social stability to society. The social order, according
to Chandhoke, “is constituted through the state and exists within the parameters laid down by
the state.”

e) The state exists within the framework of a given society. As society responds to the changing
conditions compelled by numerous social forces, the state responds to the changing society.
The state always reflects the changing relations of society. As society constantly re-enacts
itself, so does the state.

The liberal and the marxist perspectives of civil society differ drastically. For the liberals, civil
society presupposes democratic states together with the accountability of the states, the limits
on state power, the responsiveness to the spontaneous life and the interactions of civil society.
For the marxists, civil society is the arena of class conflicts, selfish competition and exploitation,
the state acting to protect the interests of the owning classes. A definition of civil society
comprising the insights of both the liberals and the marxists must take into account the following:

a) The state power must be controlled and it has to become responsive through democratic
practices of an independent civil society

16
b) Political accountability has to reside not only in constitutions, laws, and regulations, but also in
the social fabric or what Habermas calls the competence of the ‘political public’ which, in turn,
has the following implications: (i) it implies that the people come together in an arena of common
concerns, in debates and discussion and discourse free from state interference (ii) it implies
that the discourse is accessible to all (iii) it implies a space where public discussion and debate
can take place.

c) Democratic norms and processes have to be imbibed in the social order.

d) Civil society is the public sphere of society. It is the location of these processes by which the
experiences of individuals and communities, and the expression of experiences in debates and
discussions, affirmation and constitution are mediated. It is also a theatre where “the dialectic
between the private and the public are negotiated. It is the process by which society seeks to
“breach” and counteract the simultaneous “totalisation” unleashed by the state” (Bayart, “Civil
Society in Africa”, in Chabal, P., ed., Political Domination in Africa: Reflections on the
Limits of Power). It is a site where the state is forbidden to shape public opinion and perceptions.

10.3 CONCEPT OF THE STATE: AN OVERVIEW

The state, being at the very core of political theory, has been defined differently by different
political philosophers since the time of the ancient Greek. For some, it is an institution of
coercion, while for others, it is the custodian of the rights of the people. While some, like the
anarchists, would like to abolish the state straight away, others like the socialists of the non-
marxian shade would want it to stay to establish socialism.

Despite the fact that the state has meant different things to different people, one cannot ignore
the central place the state has in political theory. One would do better, if one attempts to discuss
the meaning of the state vis-à-vis society which has come to us by a host of eastern political
philosophers.

10.3.1 The Pre-modern Tradition

In all his works in political theory, there is a strong case which Plato (428/7- 348/7 BC) builds
in favour of an omnipotent rule. The problem to which Plato addressed himself was not as to
how best a government could be created, but as to how the best government could be installed.
It is the job of the government, Plato affirmed more than once, to help people live a complete
life. It is, thus, with Plato a matter of just not a government, but a just government, just not a
government any how, but a perfect government, the government that was able to deliver
happiness for all who lived therein. For Plato, a state is a system of relationships in which
everyone does his own business and where the job of the state is to maintain, and promote such
relationships.

Following his teacher Plato, Aristotle (384-322 BC) defined the state as polis (the ancient
Greeks used polis for the state) as a community, which exists for the supreme good. He says
that the state is “an association of households and villages sharing in a life of virtue, and aiming
at an end which exists in perfect and self-complete existence.”

Both Plato and Aristotle, and for that matter all Greeks, thought of polis as more than a state.
It was an arrangement of administrative machinery, a government or a constitution, but was also
a school, a church laying the guidelines for a way of life, which for them, was nothing but

17
 leading a full life. For Plato and Aristotle, there was no distinction between the state and society:
the state was an organ and a part of the society; it was submerged in the society itself. In
addition, the Greeks thought of the polis as an ethical entity and that was why they assigned,
ethical functions to be performed by the rulers of the state, i.e., good, happy and complete life.
Barker writes, “It (the polis) is more than a legal structure: it is also a moral spirit”. An ancient
Greek would never imagine himself without the polis, he was only a part of the polis, a part of
the whole. Barker says, “Here (in ancient Greece) were individuals, distinct from the state, yet
in their communion forming the state.” Wayper also says “For life to be worth living must have
a meaning, and only in the polis they (the Greeks) were sure, did it acquire meaning. There was
no distinction between political, social and ethical life in ancient Greece. The society was the
state as the state was with Plato and Aristotle, a government: the freeman, the master was a
citizen, a legislator and a member of the society; he as the ruler ruled the individual as a member
of the society, all the individuals, the whole society. The slave-owing society of ancient Greek
times could hardly be expected to give a theory of state, nay a theory of society, more than that
of the government, precisely, the rulers”.

To Cicero’s writings would go the credit of giving a notion of the state which is not a polis, but
a commonwealth. Like the ancient Greeks, Cicero also regards the state submerged in the
society, a part, i.e., an integral part of the society. Cicero says, “The Commonwealth, then, is
the people’s affairs, and the people is not every group of man, associated in any manner, but
is the coming together of a considerable number of men who are united by a common agreement
about law and rights, and by the desire to participate in mutual advantages.” From this, Cicero’s
theory of state can be summed up as: (i) the state is differentiated from people’s gatherings,
i.e., society (ii) the people enter the state after they agree on certain rules, giving people a
‘legal’ status, which lead them to form ‘legal community (iii) the state exists when people agree
to participate in its affairs. In Cicero’s theory, there is a theory of state different from the theory
of society; he makes a distinction between the state and the society; his theory of state is the
theory of government as well as a theory of political community.

The medieval political theory in the West was mainly concerned with Christianity where social
life was more a religious life regulated by the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church headed
by the Pope. Christendom ruled the universe and politics was controlled by the Church. The
temporal power was regarded inferior to that of the ecclesiastical, the state acting as a footnote
to the wider world. The state, in the medieval European world, was thought of as a means for
reaching the City of God (St. Augustine), and the human law was to work under the divine
law, natural law and ultimately, under the eternal law (St. Thomas). It was not the society that
controlled the state, but those who controlled the society– the Pope, the Church priests, the
monarchs and the feudal lords– who controlled the state i.e., the state machinery.

10.3.2 The Liberal-Individualist Tradition

With the modern age ushering in the Western World during the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries,
there appeared a definite theory of state. The liberal-individualist philosophers, with Hobbes
(1588-1679) onward, came to make a clear distinction between the state and society by making
the state a matter of mere governance. All liberals, basing their political theory on individuals,
came to build political power, the state, as an instrument, some like Hobbes giving all powers
to the state while others like Bentham (1748-1832) making it a non-interventionist one. All
liberals argue for an autonomous individual, the degree for individual autonomy differing from
philosopher to philosopher. The liberals’ laurels included “individual liberties, rights as sacred as
natural, property ethos, rule of law, free, competitive and market economy … all to remain free

18
from the interference of the state. The early modern political theory could not make distinction
between state, and government, … All regarded state power as political power, and political
power as the power of the government”.

The Machiavellian state (credit goes to Machiavelli for introducing the word ‘state’ in Political
Science), whether princedom or republic, is a power state, meaning thereby that it exists for
power and exists because of the power whose main interest is to maintain, enhance and enlarge
its own authority. For Bodin (1530-1596), the state is “a lawful government, with sovereign
powers, of different households, and their common affairs”, considering the state affairs as
concerning the ‘public’. “The final cause, end, or design of men”, Hobbes says, “is the foresight
of their own preservation, and of a more contented life”.

With Locke (1632-1704), the liberal theory gets impetus and the state comes to protect property,
and promote a better economic life, for liberalism comes to stay as the political philosophy of
the capitalist class, the democratic flavour joining it at a later stage of development. The early
liberal-democratic theory restricted the role of the state to the minimal, protecting life, liberty
and property of its citizens from external aggression and internal chaos on the one hand, and
providing a system of justice and public works, and amenities on the other hand, with no role
for the welfare of the people.

It was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) first, and T.H. Green (1836-1882) later who expanded the
positive role of the state in preparing a conducive atmosphere where the individual could enjoy
a better way of life. Mill and Green introduced democratic elements in the organisation and
functioning of the state, though both could hardly leave their capitalistic shackles.

To sum up, one may, therefore, conclude that the early modern political theorists such as
Machiavelli and Bodin could hardly see beyond the omnipotent state. The contractualists, especially
Hobbes, had thought that in order for society to come into existence, a strong state is required.
The early liberals such as Locke, Smith, Bentham held the view that as the society has the
capacity to reproduce and regenerate itself, the state and its power should be minimal. But the
later liberals, J.S. Mill, T.H. Green, De Tocqueville felt that numerous social associations, while
enhancing social ability, could become instruments through which individuals could fashion a
political discourse which could limit the nature of state power. The liberal pluralistic, in the third
and fourth decades of the twentieth century were able to build a strong case for the numerous
associations, existing in society, to control the omnipotence of the state while balancing the latter
against the claims of the society.

10.3.3 The Marxian Tradition

The Marxian theory of the state emerged, as a reaction against liberalism. For the Marxists,
state and society are two distinct entities, though the state is not independent of society. The
society type explains the type of state, society providing the base on which stood the
superstructure. The Marxists, regarding the state as a product of a class society, believe the
state to be a class institution, protecting and promoting the possessing class, and oppressing and
coercing the non-possessing class. For them, the state is an engine of class rule. But it is also
an instrument of social and political change, its negative function is to destroy the remains of
the earlier society, while it, through its constructive functions, builds the structure and culture
of the class it is manned with.

Chandhoke discerns three theoretical moments of the Marxist theory of state. The first such
moment has been when Marx and Engels, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)

19
 regard “the executive of the modern state ” as “a committee for managing the common affairs
of the whole bourgeoisie”. Marx also writes in the preface to Towards a Critique of Political
Economy (1859), “the totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure
of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” This base-superstructure model of the state
was a reaction to the liberal concept of the disembodied state standing apart from society as
also a reaction against the Hegelian model of the all-powerful state while subordinating civil
society to it. The second moment, appearing around the 1960s and with Ralph Miliband and
Hanza Alvi, questions the nature of the state and its relationship with society. In it, the state
emerges as a distinct theoretical object in its own right and state-centric theory emerged as the
dominant stream of political theory. The third theoretical moment was made possible through the
contributions of Nicos Poulantzas and Claus Off. This moment saw political theorists preoccupied
with concepts and theories. Following Gramsci, who had conceptualised the state as the political
consideration of civil society, the Marxist political theorists of the third theoretical moment began
a spiralling interest in civil society as the sphere where meaningful practices, both hegemonic
and subversive, are generalised.

10.4 CONCEPT OF CIVIL SOCIETY: AN OVERVIEW

The concept of civil society is associated with the Western intellectual tradition. With the
epoichal changes in the West, the idea of civil society has grown progressively. Many factors
have gone into developing the concept of the state as it has come to stay with us. These factors,
to mention a few, include the emergence of secular authority, the development of the institution
of property, the decline of the absolutist state, the growth of urban culture, the rise of nationalist
and democratic movements, until the end of the nineteenth century and the rule of law. As the
capitalist economy with its democratising features has developed, so has the concept of civil
society.

10.4.1 The Pre-Modern Tradition

If the idea of civil society contains in it the idea of what relates to public, the pre-modern times
may well be regarded as opposed to the concept of civil society. The Platonic rulers alone were
the administrators and a large number of those who constituted ‘the producing class’ had no
role to play in public affairs. The Aristotelian notion of ‘zoon politikon’ (man as a political
animal) was elitistic in the sense that (i) the political animal was a male, (ii) he alone was a
citizen and (iii) he alone was a property holder. The rest of the population, the women, the slaves
etc., constituted Oikes, i.e., the private world and that could hardly be termed as constituting
the civil society. As the ‘private’ was not ‘public’, it was not political and none belonging to it
had any citizenship rights. The Greek society, Chandhoke points out, did not ‘possess any notion
of inalienable rights of man to individual freedom which became so prominent a feature of early
version of civil society.”

By developing the concept of rights, legally ordained, and especially relating to property of the
individual, there did emerge the notion of ‘civil society’ in ancient Roman thinking. Indeed the
notion of ‘civil society’ did need such an atmosphere to shape itself, but the ancient Roman
thought could hardly rise above that, notwithstanding the attempts at making distinction between
‘private’ and ‘public’ which the ancient Romans really did.

During the whole medieval period in the West when politics took the back seat, the idea of civil

20
society got eclipsed. What related to ‘public’ as ‘political’ was limited to a very few people
called the feudal lords, barons, dukes and counts. The idea of civil society was almost unknown.

10.4.2 The Liberal-Individualist Tradition

The early modern period with Machiavelli and Bodin saw the emergence of politics, but the
period itself did not witness the corresponding growth of the idea of civil society. The civil
society, as a concept, rose with the idea of individuals with rights, individuals related to the state,
and individuals related to others in society.

There is the clear reference to civil society both in Hobbes and Locke when the two sought
to make a distinction between the ‘state of nature’, and the ‘civil society’ or the ‘political
society’ after the contract was made. Both talk about the rights-bearing individuals; both sought
the state to protect these rights. It is difficult to regard the contractualists, Hobbes and Locke,
as theorists of civil society because (i) their formulations on civil society are found in an
embryonic form and (ii) their attempts, despite a rational and persuasive explanation on state
and society, remained arbitrary (see Chandhoke, State and Civil Society).

The concept of civil society has emerged clearly between the seventeenth and the nineteenth
century, especially with the classical political economy theorists such as Adam Smith. Classical
political economy, echoing individual rights like laissez faire, freedom, equality, made the institution
of state as simply irrelevant, devaluing it, and that of civil society as what Marx had said ‘theatre
of history’. This helped “the civil society”, Chandhoke writes, “as a historically evolved area of
individual rights and freedoms, where individuals in competition with each other pursued their
respective private concern.”

The advent of the idea of civil society, coming from the writings of political economy theorists,
was to have its shape vis-à-vis the state. J.S. Mill and De Tocqueville who thought that the state
had become much more powerful than desired, sought to limit the power of the state through
the mechanism devised in the ever developing concept of civil society. Chandhoke sums up this
phase of liberalism, saying: “…. Civil society was used as a concept primarily for organizing
state-society relations. The expansion of the state, it was perceptively recognized, would contribute
to the shrinkage of the civil arena. State power could be limited only with the expansion of civil
society.”

The process of democratisation in the west made it possible for civil society to expand itself,
and in the process, restricted the area of the state. But elsewhere, the concept of the state
gained prominence restricting thus, the arena of civil society. The views of Hegel, and therefore,
of Marx and Gramsci should be of some interest.

10.4.3 The Hegelian, Marxian and Gramscian Traditions

There is a definite relationship between the state and civil society in the writings of Hegel (1770-
1831). He views the state as the latest link growing out of the development of various institutions.
Describing the state as the synthesis, representing universality, of the thesis of families and the
anti-thesis of civil society, Hegel recognises the state as higher in kind than civil society. Hegel
regards the state as the highest, the latest, and even the final form of social institutions. For him,
civil society, as the anti-thesis of the thesis of family is “an expression for the individualist and
atomistic atmosphere of middle class commercial society in which relationships are external,
governed by the ‘unseen’ hand of the economic laws rather than by the self-conscious will of

21
 persons.” So, civil society, a negative institution as it is for Hegel, belongs to the “realm of
mechanical necessity, a resultant of the irrational forces of individual desires”, governed, as
Sabine says for Hegel, “by non-moral casual laws and hence, ethically anarchical.” The thesis
(the family) and the anti-thesis (the civil, the bourgeois society) merge into what Hegel calls the
state (the synthesis). Thus, the state comes to have the universality of civil society and the
specificity and the individuality of the family.

Thus, while the political economy and the liberal-democratic theorists had given primacy to civil
society, and had given the state a back seat, Hegel reverses the position and puts the state in
the position of civil society. According to Hegel, ultimately civil society is subordinated to the
state, and the individual, to the whole. “Consequently, in Hegelian formulation”, Chandhoke says,
“there can be no interrogation of the state, of its designs for universality, or of its rationale. The
resolution of the contradiction of civil society is the state, and therefore, between the people and
the state, there is no dichotomy, only legitimacy and acceptance.”

Marx, unlike Hegel who had made the civil society a hostage and who had idealised the state,
seeks to restore the civil society to the position of making it the theatre of history. But the civil
society, Marx argues, has failed to live up to its promises, had failed to create a situation where
the individual could find freedom and democratic transformation, had to seek ways and means
through which individuals could integrate into the society and the state.

Gramsci (1891-1937) following Marx and developing his theory of state takes into account the
reality of civil society. His main proposition is that one cannot understand the state without
understanding the civil society. He says that the ‘state’ should be understood as not only the
apparatus of government, but also the ‘private’ apparatus of hegemony or civil society. Building
on the Marxian notion of the state, Gramsci makes a distinction between the state as a political
organisation (the integral state, the visible political constitution of civil society) and the state as
government. The integral state keeps reproducing itself in the practices of everyday life through
activities situated in civil society. It is hegemony which provides moral and intellectual leadership
to practices in civil society. Hegemony, for Gramsci, works for both, for the dominant as well
as the subaltern class in civil society. Each class must, Gramsci says, before seizing power,
hegemonise social relations in society.

To sum up, it may be said that for both the liberals and the Marxists, civil society is primary.
While the liberals argue for the separation of civil society from the autonomy of the state, the
Marxists, on the other hand, create an alternative tradition of civil society, in which, the civil
society, with its all potentialities, has to keep itself always reorganised and transformed.

10.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND CIVIL

SOCIETY
The relationship between state and civil society is important in so far as it suggests the comparative
position of each in relation to the other. In some analyses, this relationship is depicted as a zero-
sum game: the stronger the state, the weaker the civil society; the weaker the state, the stronger
the civil society. Obviously, the expansion of the area of state activity would help minimise the
role of civil society; the expansion of the area of civil society would help, on the other hand,
minimise the role of the state. In modern liberal societies of our time, the civil society ‘sphere’
is larger than that of the state, while in dictatorial regimes of any sort, the state’s ‘sphere’ is
larger than that of civil society.

22
10.5.1 State and Civil Society: Integrative Relationship
State and civil society are not two opposite concepts. One does not stand in conflict with
another. Neither is one the anti-thesis of the other. The two should not be regarded as usurping
the area of each other. It is not a zero-sum game relationship between the two. Indeed, the
relatively stronger state would put a premium on the role of civil society, but this, in no way,
diminishes the effectiveness of civil society. The libertarian view, expressed in the writings of
Hayek or Nozick, that the state is likely to oppress civil society is, more or less, ill-founded. The
fact of the matter is that the relationships between state and civil society are reciprocal; the
relationships are of an integrative nature, each strengthening the cause of the other. It is, infact,
difficult to conceive of civil society functioning successfully without the state. We see the citizen
simultaneously constrained by the state and protected by it. It is the state which provides the
integrative framework within which the civil society operates; civil society cannot function
properly without the state. The integrative framework, as expressed in laws and rules, is
accepted as valid by all, the framework needs to be administered neutrally and in a manner
consistent with the shared culture of society. We cannot imagine life without this integrative
framework, which creates a degree of coherence and without which civil society is likely to
become uncivil. Civil society has to open up, in the face of the all-powerful state, to challenge
the bureaucratic devices lest it ends up in rigidity. It is, thus, the reciprocity between state and
civil society that is significant or at least, should be considered significant. State power is to be
exercised within the larger and wider sphere of civil society, and civil society has to keep state
power on its toes so that it does not degenerate into absolutism.

10.5.2 State, Civil Society and Democracy

The two concepts, state and civil society, are not in conflict with each other. Democracy
integrates the two. The claims of the state get strengthened by civil society and civil society
is made more stable through the state. The two have to work in a democratic frame: the
democratic state within the framework of democratic civil society. In a democratic system, state
and civil society can collaborate for effective functioning of each. The state has to be constituted
democratically, wherein its powers are decentralised and its functions are performed within the
rules and procedures already laid. Such a state has to respond to the ever-growing demands
of civil society. Its role, more or less, is to coordinate, it has to interfere least in the social and
economic life of the people; it has to be regulative in character.

Civil society has to be more open and diversified. It has to keep the dialogue continuous and
constant with the state and within all the constituents making it. Its area has to be ordained
freely and openly, devices making up public opinion and public discourse state-free.

In liberal-democratic states, there is a constant interplay of forces belonging to the state and
civil society, each putting an imprint on the other. In dictatorial regimes, state power is used to
control civil society and civil society gets integrated into the state: the state speaks for the civil
society. Democracy alone unites the state with civil society. The state cannot exist for long if
it is not democracy laden; civil society cannot exist unless it is democratically structured and
functions democratically.

A democratic state cannot exist if it is restrictive, coercive, prohibitive, and imposing; it cannot
exist if it does not provide the civil society frame in perfect order; it cannot exist if it does not
guarantee rights and freedoms to individuals. Likewise, a democratic civil society cannot exist
if it does not allow every individual to act in the public sphere, it cannot exist if each and every
citizen does not have equal claim on the state, if each citizen is not respected as a human being.

23
 10.6 SUMMARY
State is not mere governance; it is a political community as well. It is, what Gramsci says, the
visible political constitution of civil society, consisting of the entire complex of activities with
which a ruling class maintains its dominance, and the ways in which it manages to win the
consent of those over which it rules. It is, in other words, a complex of institutions and practices
resting upon the nodal points of power in civil society. It is a social relation and as such, it is
the codified power of social formation.

Civil society consists of the entire range of assumptions, values and institutions such as political,
social and civil rights, the rule of law, representative institutions, a public sphere and above all,
a plurality of associations.

The two concepts, state and civil society, have grown over time and along with them, their
characteristics also developed. They have stood in relation to each other, each giving another
a corresponding value. With the emergence of political economy and liberalism, civil society got
a definite connotation, especially in relation to the state.

State and civil society are closely related to each other. The state cannot be imagined without
civil society, and civil society cannot be thought of without the state. The two exist in integrative
relationships. The state, in democratic systems, protects civil society and civil society strengthens
the state. In dictatorial regimes, the state controls the civil society.

10.7 EXERCISES
1. How did the term ‘state’ come to be used in the West?

2. Explain briefly the characteristic features of the State.

3. State briefly the ancient Greek view of the State.

4. Why do Marxists regard the state as the committee for managing the common affairs of the
bourgeoisie?

5. Explain the early modern view of the state.

6. What is civil society?

7. Explain Hegel’s view of civil society.

8. Explain the relationship between state and civil society.

9. How does democracy ensure an integrative relationship between the state and the civil society?

24
 POLITICS AND SOCIETY
Nation, Democracy And Citizenship

What is this Nation? A Nation, in the sense of political and economic union of a people, is
that aspect which the whole population assumes when organized for a mechanical purpose. A nation may
refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent,and/or history.
In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a
common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their
ethnic make-up. In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of

individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the
nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity. There are various definitions for what constitutes a
nation. Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - people must be autonomous, united, and express a
single national culture.

Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to the national past, and
sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the
establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass.

The concept of nation developed in the West. Nationalism got momentum as an ideology
during the freedom struggle. After this national awakening we got independence and went for formulation
of new constitution guaranteeing equality, liberty etc.

All the problems faced by India today is due to lack of unity. Why search for nationalism?

 Because it is necessary for political discourse.

 Because it makes a secular credentials weaker/stronger.
 Because search for nationalism is inevitable.

British introduced and practised the divide and rule policy prior to which people used to
share harmonic relationship. Today we have growing cultural, religious influence in politics. Why did India go
for secularism even though we can see the presence of God everywhere in public life e.g." people asked to
swear on religious books. Politician takes oath in the name of God. Hence Indians being secular is
questionable because religion is present and hidden in the heart and soul of people which is cashed upon by
the politicians.
 Rise of cultural consciousness is contesting with secular ideology. Why religion – culture is
used in the name of nationalism?

All freedom struggle leaders along with reform leaders glorified nationalism on the foundation
of culture and religion. Bankim Chandra said that nationalism is not a political agenda but the moral duty
of the people born in this particular territory to protect their motherland. The cultural nationalism got
critical orientation with rightist. They indicated ,following the footsteps of Max Mueller and Sir William
Jones that Aryans are not invaders to India but original inhabitants.

After freedom struggle we changed attention from nationalist state to inclusive, democratic,
socialist and pluralistic nation. Modern India is driven on the premise of progressive nation.

Ambedkar was critical of Gandhi’s philosophy of cultural nationalism. During 1930s secessionist
movement was started in South India as a fear that after Independence Aryan culture will be imposed on
them thereby questioning their identity. They considered Hinduism as an aggressive ideology.

Amartya Sen tells that nationalism is a form of religious revivalism that is attacking to
individual freedom, secular character of the country, accelerating communal tension and putting the
development programmes and welfare measures at the backseat. TN Madan considered at cultural revivalism
and glorification of communal politics is a natural phenomena in a society like India. In India people are so
committed to culture in terms of language, speech, food, marriage and rituals that bringing inflation back
to public sphere is never difficult.

Andre Beteille considered that search for nationalism is not relevant to contemporary times
when illiteracy, deprivation, poverty, gender issue are so greatly affecting to the rise of India as a
pluralistic secular state. DL Joshi consider that nationalism, its evolution, growth and decline must be
studied in the context of time. He indicates that glorification of nationalism in contemporary times can be
attributed to the following factors:

 cultural nationalism perceived as a mechanism to unify people in past. Using past experience as a
mechanism by political parties to try to revoke cultural consciousness to get maximum support to
capture state power.
 Pluralism and secularism in India has failed to deliver result to majority and minority. As a result
secularism is considered a sub policy adopted by the state to appease the minority at large.
 Problems like cross-border terrorism manifest hostility between India and Pakistan is being used as a
pretext for the glorification of Hindu revivalism that emphasises on the rise of strong state that
can put a stop on the nuisance of hostile neighbours.
 In conclusion it can be advocated at search for nationalism today is a product of fragmented
politics. It is evident from the fact that India was never a unified nation because different communities
and culture located at different regions were speaking different languages, practising different culture,
exhibiting the character of diversity. Therefore nationalism was construed agenda during freedom struggle in
India. Bringing back the spirit of nationalism today can only develop suspicion, hatred and conflict among
various sections of society to split Indian to different pieces.

Ramchandra Guha indicates that people of India go for differential nationalism rejecting outrightly cultural
nationalism and few of these differential nationalism are cricket nationalism, Kargil nationalism, Nationalism
to sympathise with tsunami victims etc which needs to be appreciated.

Citizenship

Citizenship is one of the most commonly used terms in a democracy. It isused at all levels of
politics; in formal legal documents, in laws, in constitutions, in party manifestoes and in speeches. But
what is citizenship? Or, who is a citizen? A citizen is not anyone who lives in a nation-state. Among those
who live in a nation-state, there are citizens and aliens. A citizen is not just an inhabitant. He or she
does not merely live in the territory of a state. A citizen is one who participates in the process of
government. In a democratic society, there must be a two-way traffic between the citizens and the
government. All governments demand certain duties from the citizens. But, in return, the state must also
admit some demands on itself. These are called rights. A citizen must have economic rights, political rights
and social rights. A person who is ruled by laws but who has no political rights is not a citizen.

Economic rights: It determines that one can have access to poverty in a legitimate manner in any part of
the country. One can use his/her earned money as he/she likes it in a free manner and in a legitimate
way. One can have trade and business ties with anyone in legitimate manner any part of the country and
in addition to that one can also borrow money from public institutions to invest in a legitimate manner.

Social citizenship: it gives an individual right to equality on the basis of gender, caste, religion, language.

Political citizenship : it is right to people to register protest, freedom of speech and expression, right to
vote.

If all the rights extended and consumed by everybody then it is known as democratic rights.
India is a democratic country but people are not enjoying democratic rights because of inequalities e.g.
rural population.
Democracy
Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions
that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal,
development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural
conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. Democracy is not only a
political system but an ideal, an aspiration, a reality, intimately connected to and dependent upon a
picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human.

While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom
have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.These principles are
reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For
example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply
to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized
rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.It include elements such as political
pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due
process of law ,civil liberties ,human rights , and elements of civil society outside the government.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for
a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or
constitutional protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative
democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom
of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that
citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see
them. It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to
participate freely and fully in the life of their society.

Indian is the largest democracy in the world. The Constitution of Indian was enforced on 26
January, 1950. It ushered in the age of democracy. India became a democratic republic infused with the
spirit of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. The Preamble, the Directive Principles of State Policy and
the Fundamental Rights reflect the Indian ideology. People belonging to all caste, creed, religion, or sex
have the right to cast their vote. After the election, the majority party or coalition forms the
government and its leader become the Prime Minister.

We enjoy every right in theory, but not in practice. Real democracy will come into being only
when the masses are awakened and take part in the economic and political life of the country. There is
inequality in every sphere- social, economic and political. Illiteracy is the main cause of inequality. The
illiterate masses get easily lured by money during such an event. Also some of our legislators have criminal
records against them. The people who make the laws themselves break them.

But India, as a democratic country, has progressed in many aspects. It has archived self-
sufficiency in food grains as a result of the green revolution. People vote for change whenever a
government fails to come up to the expectations of the people. India has been a successful democratic
country only because the people are law-abiding, self-disciplined and have the sense of social and moral
responsibilities.
 Democracy demands from the common man a certain level of ability and character, like
rational conducts, an intelligent understanding of public affair, independent justice and unselfish devotion to
public interest. People should not allow communalism, separatism, casteism, terrorism, etc to raise their
heads. They are a threat to democracy. The government, the NGOs and the people together should work
collectively for the economic development of the nation. Changes should come through peaceful, democratic
and constitutional means. The talented youth of today should be politically educated so that they can
become effective leaders of tomorrow.

In a democracy where civil society is stronger, people are enjoying their citizenship right to
the fullest. When we talk about state and citizenship we cannot ignore the role of civil society. The whole
concept of civil society evolved from Western specifically coffee-house in Britain, Salons in France and Table
Groups in Germany which are considered as the roots of civil society. At these places different issues were
discussed leading to a particular public opinion which was then published in newspapers, magazines etc.

Aware, articulating, educated people played an important role in the emergence of civil
society. Civil society does not pass mere opinion, it involves certain seriousness. It is a voluntary
organisation into which one can come and go as per their choice. Civil society is not hierarchical and
everybody is equal and exhibit their own opinion and choice about larger issues therefore holistic group take
diversified issues into consideration.

Meaningful democratic society cannot exist without the presence of civil society. India was
not a state when civil society came into prominence; it was in the presence of civil society that India
evolved into a state. Indian's never had citizenship rights under British state which was all-powerful,
monopolistic without any concern for people.

Civil society evolved in India with the efforts of few Indians who were British educated and
aware of the working of British society. They questioned the British government on various issues like land
tenure system, discrimination on economic, social and political grounds etc. After 1990’s civil society has
become very strong in India and have taken upon itself various issues concerning people like corruption,
environment, women issues, education, child labour etc.
 Regionalism
Region refers to a geographic territory where one lives. It is not just the love for region but
the sentiments attached with the territory, love for cultural aspects of that particular region, love for
custom and values of that region. Regionalism is a voluntaristic phenomena.

Regionalism in India has become a decisive force which is all prepared to split the nation. The
classical theory to regionalism considers it to be a threat. This theory points out that regionalism and
nationalism are engaged in dialectics with each other. Regional consciousness is fast entering into sub-
national consciousness which is leading to separatist tendencies paving the way for the division of India.

Regionalism develop a false consciousness wherein it acts as an obstacle to class mobilisation.

The issues like poverty, unemployment etc have taken a back seat and regionalism is glorified which further
encourages inequality. In order to understand regionalism today we have to understand its roots. In India
we have 6000 dialects, 500 different languages out of which only few languages are recognised i.e. enjoy
official status.

During 1950s reconstruction of Indian State on the basis of language sowed the seeds for
regional aspirations which is prevalent even today. In a region we find people speaking different dialects and
when people find out that language is the main criteria for recognition of state (organisation of state on
linguistic basis) people transform their dialects into language. The constitutional provisions with regard to
the creation of new region (state) is liberally in nature with the tilt of power towards the Central
government to create new state and grant relative power and autonomy. This has made people having
regional consciousness find no problem for demanding state.The contemporary regional movement is the
result of two reasons i.e. overdevelopment in some areas and underdevelopment in other areas.

In Punjab in Maharashtra overdevelopment has taken place and the people staying there and
start considering that state contribution to nation is not equivalent to nation's contribution to state. In
North East India there is no single criteria on the basis of which one can create a state because every
tribe is different from the other which creates big problem for government and so the concept of union
territories come into play.

When there was single party rule it was relatively easier for the government to contain the
regional aspirations of the people as both state and Centre were ruled by Congress. But the case is
different today wherein multiplicity of party has opened a Pandora's box wherein state parties have no
way out but to succumb to the pressure created by the local population.

But there is a contrasting viewpoint which has been put forward by various sociologist who
do not consider regionalism as divisive force. Rajni Kothari believes that regional movement is a search for
political aspirations that is making Indian democracy competent and strong.

Partho Chatterjee indicates that regionalism is a challenge to nationalism. During the early
phase of Indian nationalism regionalism became an important instrument for national aspirations but in
contemporary context , questions like development, underdevelopment, empowerment and powerlessness,
relative deprivation are the guiding force behind regionalism.
 Small is not always beautiful is evident from growing poverty in case of Chhattisgarh as
compared to minimum poverty in Punjab. A small state cannot guarantee happiness. It is evident from our
current position where failure of the state to address the deprivation of the people has given way to
acceleration of naxalite movement. In the whole of North East India people are fighting on the basis of
ethnic identity, sub ethnic identity and sub sub ethnic identity which brings forward the conclusion that
small states are not always better governed and there is no end to people’s aspirations for power.

Therefore in today’s India where regionalism has become everyday experience our prime
concern should not be to put an end to it, but rather to ensure that region and state do not engage in
conflict by addressing to the needs and aspirations of the people.

Secularism
Secularism is a western ideology initiated during the Renaissance when people started
questioning the Orthodox Church. The prominence of the protest movement as a result brought down the
influence of the Church over the state. It was considered that state should be people centric so that rules
framed cater to the people's need and that church focus only upon religion and not politics. When the
influence of the Church dominated the decision-making of the state, only spiritual needs of individuals were
fulfilled and other needs like gender equality, poverty, unemployment were not addressed. America largely
evolved as a religious entity but when constitution was written greater emphasis was given on separation
between state and church. When people enter the state their religious identity should be left behind. In
US religion keeps away from public but on the contrary in India people mix-up their public position with
secular position.

Rajendra Prasad said that state should not promote any religion. Secularism has many faces
therefore one cannot have definite meaning to the concept of secularism. After independence there was no
self-doubt in the minds of nationalist leader about what should be the future shape of India. It was
perceived that Indian Constitution should be respecting the diversity of religion irrespective of origin and
composition and membership of religious communities. It was realised that man and religion in India are so
greatly embedded that India cannot go for nonreligious society like Communist countries therefore it has
been specifically mentioned in the Constitution that every religion has freedom to preach, practice and
propagate its own religious values and no citizen of the country will be discriminated on the grounds of
religion.

State is also involved into negotiating religious conflict between various groups without
favouring anyone. Neither state of India is religious in its function nor the people of India are told to give
up their religion therefore secularism in India has evolved in a unique manner balancing the needs and
emotions of people and the demands of secular state.

Indian secularism stands on the premise of pluralism and Indian state can control religious institutions if it
feels that on the basis of religious consolidation new Pakistan are regularly created leading to vertical
division of society on the basis of religious or sectoral identity.
 Therefore secularism is not falling from heaven to carry universalistic character. It evolves
from society to negotiate the conditions and compulsions of social structure. The working of secularism in
India is subjected to sociological review when sociologist like TN Madan and Ashish Nandy consider that
secularism will a unique experience in Indian context because love for religion is so intensive and regular in
case of India that we have never seen a single sphere without communal conflict since India's independence.
They believe that religion is in the blood of people of India that strongly influenced to their choice of
marriage, food behaviour, pattern of thinking, interpersonal relations and therefore to separate man in
India from religion is absolutely impossible. Thus when constitution tries to separate religion from public
sphere, it slowly enters into public domain in one form or the other.

Ashish Nandy indicates that more India moves in the direction of modernity, higher is the
acceleration of communal conflict. Information technology, television and telecommunications acts as an
accelerating medium to spread communally charged messages in a big way in contemporary India. Therefore
secular education, secular employment in no way has suppressed the communal passion and communalism in
India is a way of life and thinking of secularism is a difficult proposition.

These arguments of anti-secularist nature is rejected by various sociologists who makes use of certain
specific scales to study the degree of secularism possible in any given society. These specific criteria are:

 to what extent the religion is prepared to go for internal reforms;

 to what extent one religion is prepared to coexist with other religion;
 to what extent one religion is prepared to borrow attributes from other religion and pass it on;
 and finally to what extent a state can offer equalitarian space to every religion maintaining a safe
distance from every religion while discharging secular responsibilities.

Keeping in view the above scale to measure any society it can be advocated that no society is purely
secular and no society is purely anti-secular or sacred.

Amartya Sen considers himself as non-reformist sociologist along with Andre Beteille and
Upendra Bakshi and indicate that Indian state is duty bound to protect its secular credentials by paying
equal respect to all religions. If any religious community by virtue of its size tries to seize the government
through popular mandate, Constitutional provisions should be deterring them to cherish their distinctive
religious goals. Therefore Indian secularism is not positioned at a weak space because the court of law, the
Constitution of India stand as an obstacle to challenges coming to it.

More Indian secularism is challenged more secular credentials of India are protected therefore
communal violence may simply offer a threat to Indian secularism but cannot destroy it. Therefore state
of India must know that it is a secular state, only secular and no more and less. The secularism in India is
a unique experience. It has been challenged by different forces at different points of time but has never
crumbled down compromising with the principles of pluralism and equality for which one can conclude that
Indian secularism is Indian secularism; it's neither weak nor strong and not a replica of secularism in the
West.
 Decentralisation Of Power (Panchayati Raj Institution)
Democracy is not just an experience doing well in West but it has been transferred to the
east which has adapted to the political system giving in a whole new dimension. It is not just an
institution borrowed from West but an experience which every section of society in their everyday life goes
through. Since democratic experience has been fragmented in various societies as it caters to the elites
who draw most of its benefit whereas masses have been left in the lurch. Gandhiji focused upon governance
from below i.e setting up of institution of Panchayati Raj to address effectively the problems of the
people at the grassroot level.

When British came to India, they introduce Zamindari system which led to autocratic and
coercive power resulting into the collapse of traditional structure. After independence to make India
democratic, the principal of grassroot approach came into prominence. Balwant Rai Mehta committee was
constituted in 1952 which gave its report in 1959 and so first Panchayati Raj institution was introduced
in Rajasthan. It suggested three tier system i.e. village level, block level, district level. Its objective was to
go for self-governance wherein member of village panchayat sitting together would take up issues related
to everyday life like health, rural development, sanitation etc.

PRI is considered a landmark in the history of India because democracy was now evolving from grassroot
level. India is known in the world for political decentralisation. But there is a point to it – India has
political decentralisation but not administrative decentralisation. Several sociologists find out that PRI’s
have not broken any ice in the real sense and that nothing much has been achieved. PRI is about losing
control by government and administration and this is seen as a challenge to its autonomy. All official
proceedings of the PRI's can be altered/reviewed by the state to its convenience. State behaves like a big
brother, their policies and finances and other processes are continuously scrutinise the state. State is also
empowered to suspend any PRI institution, officer any time on the basis of inefficiency and so the
members of Panchayati Raj don't have any functional autonomy.

PRI's have paved the way for “Sarpanchpati”. Taking benefit in the name of women reservation they
choose women from lower caste and make her run for election thereby creating an illusion among the
people that PRI's are really working for women empowerment.

Introduction of new PRI has led to contest between old traditional powerholders and new
aspirants of power. There have been instances in South India when Dalit were not permitted to cast vote
in PRI election. Their votes were cast by other people. Booth capturing and muscle power is prominent
and hence traditional hierarchy still persist therefore new PRI is like old wine in a new bottle.

Vellupuram village incident- The PRI election was won by a Dalit woman. She promised her electorates
that once she came to power she will ensure drinking water for the masses. As per her promise she took
all necessary steps to ensure water supply but dominant caste in order to pursue their dominance raped
and murdered her in broad daylight. This incident left a question mark on the functioning of this modern
institution in traditional society.
 Rampura village incident -In this village in Rajasthan when a Dalit women came to hoist the national flag
during 15 August she was beaten brutally as to how can she play the role meant for dominant caste.

Walter Fernandes indicates that PRI’s are facing serious problem as it is trying to bring in the question of
civil rights, democratic rights into society which is driven by culture of caste, patriarchy since ancient
times. In case of Rajasthan there are instances when Dalit Sarpanch is made to sit on the floor while
other members of the Panchayati Raj sit on the chair. PRI's meetings are initiated by members belonging
to higher class/caste than by Sarpanch belonging to lower caste. This dichotomy indicates how PRI's have
not really empowered the subaltern groups like Dalits, tribes and women.

Gail omvedt considers this kind of conflict as a failure of Panchayati Raj institutions which
has not broken any ground to bring change in the power structure in village India.

Rejecting to the concept of “Sarpanchpati” Kalpana Shah indicate that empowerment of

women in a hierarchical society can only come in a phased manner. The women Sarpanch who are not proxy
leaders are going through a period of probation. She points out that power is inbuilt in women and that
they will be exercising it in the most appropriate time. She considers that PRI's have really empowered
women or at least it has given a boost for their self-assertion.

PRI's have worked well in states like Kerala, Karnataka and West Bengal. Bringing people together it has
put a stop on religious consolidation and communal conflict. In case of Karnataka it has given momentum
to women empowerment. Mutual self-help groups have evolved under the patronage of PRI's in Karnataka.
In case of West Bengal it has made people political sensitive who are no more willing to accept any
nuisance from different political leaders any longer. Power and Politics are evolving as everyday phenomena
in countryside therefore PRI's have introduced a political revolution in the microscopic structure of Indian
society.

However a major threat to PRI's is coming from non-government organisation (NGO). The
issues taken up by NGOs are delivering immediate results therefore people are backing the intervention of
NGOs in rural development programme than simply wanting PRI's.

In conclusion it can be advocated that now PRI's though bringing revolution in micro-politics
of India, its support base is quite fragile. This is evident for the reason that when social transformation
takes place in traditional society driven by hierarchical principles there is absence of structural conduciveness
for change and so conflicts become inevitable. Sociologically speaking these contradictions are manifestations
of structural adjustment for which one cannot outrightly conceptualised that the experience of PRI's is an
absolute failure. Thus India's experience with PRI is not a story of complete structural breakdown but the
story of continuity and change.
 Political Parties, Pressure Groups, Social And Political Elite

Political parties
A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy,
usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office, it is a group people
who share the same ideas about the way the country should be governed. They work together to
introduce new laws, and alter old laws.

Indian party system is unique. It does not fit in any kind of classification that is generally used to
categorise the party systems. It is defined by the singular nature of Indian politics on the one hand and
the nature of State society relationship on the other. In the last two decades, there has been a
substantial change both in the nature of politics as well as in the nature of relationship between the state
and society. One of the very important manifestations of change is visible in the context of the
politicisation of greater number of people, especially those belonging to the less privileged sections of
society. That explains the change in the nature of party system as well. The distinctive feature that
defined the party system of India in the first two decades after Independence are no more to be seen at
present.

In case of India even if political parties are going for coalition they are not sharing common
ideology and so they remain divided and hence lack stability. Political parties do not develop on the basis
of requirement in India. First political party which evolved out of mass movement i.e. Indian freedom
struggle was Congress. People from every walk of life were party to freedom struggle and therefore
Congress had the advantage of incorporating them all within its ambit and enjoy absolute power for almost
3 decades.

From 1967 to 1975 political parties were evolving. There was a split in the Congress when
Ram Manohar Lohia constituted his own party “Samakhya Vidhayak Dal” contesting election and winning in
eight states. Driven by communist ideology he could not sustain for more than two years. Most of the
members of his party joined back Congress thereby leading to the politics of “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram”.

After the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri there was an attempt by the Congress to go for centralisation of
power. Indra Gandhi created space for younger population thereby creating support base for herself.

Interest-based politics became the central point of Indian political system. The concept of
high command was introduced by the Congress which wanted to retain power. This led to the death of
party system in India (though temporarily) wherein national property was converted to private property
and Psycho fancy(annoying, immature, shallow, ignorant, pathological) became prominent. People wanted to
appease high command in order to attain political positions.
 During 1975 was political groups from the Congress constituted their own regional parties
leading to development of bargain politics and support base became like a tradable commodity. Then came
national emergency after which parties re-grouped together and by the end of 1976 Janta party became a
prominent opposition to the Congress.

During 1970s green revolution resulted into success and prosperity which led to increasing
political aspiration among people thereby we could see the emergence of new political parties. 1985
onwards we see a seachange in party system in India. For the first time Congress took support from
regional parties to constitute government under PV Narasimha Rao. Hence regional party got momentum.
This led to the emergence of politics of coalition.

Coalition politics has resulted into horse trading and affecting political ideology reducing Indian
politics into skeletal democracy. Rajni Kothari contradicting to the above statement indicates that with
centralised party system, regional interest and local interests were not glorified. As a result political
aspiration of many were getting sidelined. The growth of small political parties and their growing
significance in contemporary politics in India is making Indian politics Federal in character leading to inclusive
governance. Other scholars indicate that coalition politics in India is giving way to growth of political
polarisation taking Indian democracy in the direction of Western democracy.

In conclusion it can be advocated democracy is a form of experience in India which was introduced during
1950s but people's participation in democracy is getting accelerated in contemporary times. The rise of
several political parties with distinctive ideology is catering to the local needs and standing as a testimony
to the fact that people of India are no longer prepared to accept democracy driven by autocratic political
parties. Multi-party system has made Indian politics inclusive and people centric. It is evident from the
fact that forgetting their ideology, coalition partners are introducing policies like National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme, housing schemes, roadways programme to prove that government is not
only servicing but working as functional government to fulfill the needs and aspirations of the people.
Therefore neither regional party nor coalition government can be considered as failure of democracy because
they are making Indian society a pluralistic democracy.

Pressure Groups

A pressure group can be described as an organised group that does not put up candidates for election, but
seeks to influence government policy or legislation. They can also be described as ‘interest groups’, ‘lobby
groups’ or ‘protest groups’. Some people avoid using the term ‘pressure group’ as it can inadvertently be
interpreted as meaning the groups use actual pressure to achieve their aims, which does not necessarily
happen.

A group may include large or small number of people having common social, cultural,trade of
business interests. There can be no bar on a person being member of two or more groups. Interest groups
are not political parties as they do not participate in electoral politics, and on their own have no direct
role in the governance of the country. However, if necessary, in their interest, they may support one
political party or the other, and try to influence legislation and executive decisions by using various
methods of exercising pressure on the government of the day.

When a group carries on its function of pressurising members of the legislature by contacting
them in the parliamentary galleries, the practice is known as lobbying. This term originated in the United
States where lobbying is an accepted practice, and there are regular lobbyists who charge fees for
influencing the legislators and officers in the interest of certain groups.

Without being political parties, without contesting elections in their own name, and without
seeking
government jobs or entering the legislatures, the interest and pressure groups do play a vital role in
contemporary democracies in the decision-making process.

Types of pressure group

Institutional Interest Groups: These groups are formally organised which consist of
professional employed persons. They are part of government machinery and try to exert their influence.
But they do not have much autonomy. These groups include political parties, legislatures, armies,
bureaucracies and churches.

Associational Interest Groups : These are organised, specialist groups formed for interest articulation. These
include trade unions, organisations os businessman and industrialist (FICCI,CII, Indian Chambers of
Commerce) and civic groups.

Anomic Interest Groups: These are the groups have individual self-representation. In such type of groups,
perpetual infiltration such as contracts, demonstrations are observed. These groups are formed in the
shape of movement, demonstrations ,proceedings, signature campaigns, street corner meetings etc. Their
activities may either be constitutional unconstitutional.

Non-Associational Interest Groups: These are the kinship and lineage groups having ethnic, regional, status
and caste groups that articulate interest on the basis of individuals, family and religious sects.

Nature Of Pressure Groups In Indian

The Business Groups : The business group is the most important and organised pressure group in India.
They are also most effective. Their independent of political parties and have enough resources with which
they can safeguard their interest. Business associations is in existence in India even before independence.
The important business groups include CII, Federation of Indian Chambers of commerce (FICCI) etc. They
exert different kinds of pressures and try to influence planning, licensing and economic decision-making.
Some businesspersons are always there at the Centre as well as state level Ministry. During pre-budget
meeting, the finance ministry interacts with these groups to secure suitable inputs which helps in budget
formulation.

Trade unions: the trade unions were present even prior to independents. The emergence of Communist
movement also played an important role in the growth of trade unions in India. In 1948, the Indian
National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) was established. Trade unions in India are closely affiliated with
the political parties; many national political parties have caught their own federations of trade unions.
They exert significant pressure at policy formulation level and their strength is well recognised by political
parties in government. Sometimes these trade unions can become very vocal and militant in their action to
meet their demands. They work through the weapon of strike and have been able to achieve monetary
gains in terms of wage increase, bonus, change in structure etc.

Peasants Organisations : The rise of peasant groups in India has been mainly due to the abolition of
Zamindari system, implementation of Panchayati Raj, Land Reform measures and Green Revolution.All India
Kisan Sabha was established in 1936 and after 1942 the Communist Party of India acquired control over
it. Different parties have got their own peasant organisations. These agriculturalists are mainly organised in
regional or local class unions than on all India basis. Some important influential peasant organisations are
All India Kisan Congress, Akhila Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, All India Kisan Kamgar Sammelan, Bharatiya Kisan
Party.

Students Organisations: The student organisation in India have also acted as pressure groups both prior to
independence and after independence. The All Bengal student Association was formed in 1928. The All India
Student Federation was established in 1936. After independence the political parties continue to be
affiliated with students organisation. The all India Congress and later on the National Students Union Of
India (NSUI) are affiliated to the Congress party. The All India Federation And Students Federation Of
Indian (SFI) are controlled by Communist Party of India, Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthy Parishad(ABVP) etc
are all affiliated to different political parties.

Community associations: there are various community associations in India. These committee groups
organised on the basis of caste, class and vision. Some examples of caste organisations are scheduled Castes
Federation, backward Caste Federation etc amongst other organisation there are some like Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, Northern And Southern India Christian Conference etc which represents interest that is supposed
to safeguard their respective religions.

Caste Pressure Groups: Indian society is divided into numerous castes this is equally true about Hindus, the
Muslims and even about Christians. The caste group sometimes has a caste panchayat constituted by the
influential members of the caste who determines important matters concerning the caste members. In
recent times it is seen that most of the people vote for the members of their own caste. Caste-based
politics exert very influential pressure over the politically elected leaders to conform to their demands.
Mass media: in today's world of information and telecommunication the role of media has become very
prominent. They exert huge pressure over the state and have the capacity to influence the mindset of the
people thereby forcing the government of the day to take necessary measures to contain any given
situation.

Social And Political Elites

In sociology, an elite is a group of relatively small size, that is dominant within a large
society, having a privileged status perceived as being envied by others of a lower line of order. If such an
elite wields political power, it almost invariably puts itself in a position of leadership, whether it be
expected or volunteered, and often subjects the holders of elite status to pressure to maintain their
leadership position as part of status. They can be found in every walks of life including political one. These
elites control political life of nation, become politically powerful and have capacity to rule over masses as
they have mass appeal. Political elite concept developed in the United States, after the Second World
War and thereafter it went on to become quite popular. Pareto and Mosca are the chief exponents of this
concepts.

Political Elites In India

Political elites in India before independence came from upper-middle class. These leaders were
usually foreign educated and at high and good contacts. These people did not come from masses had no
mass base. It is only after some time that they began to understand the problems of the people. Political
elites in India have no rural but only urban base. English educated people at that time were considered as
elite group, particularly those who were foreign educated. They were intellectuals but did not like to mix
with the common man whom they considered as low person with no power of understanding.

These political elites have somewhat changed after the Constitution of India came into force
which provided equal opportunity to all in political life. Some of the elites now have begun to emerge from
the rural areas and even from middle and lower middle classes. They become national leaders in their own
right, they have mass appeal in their areas and among their caste and class. But by and large Indian
political elite still comes from upper-middle class. Political elite group at the national level, do not wish to
lose its grip over the local political life.

Green revolution has produced new elite group. Though Zamindari system has been abolished
yet only a small chunk of elite (powerful and rich people) have sway over the people and active in political
life who influence political leaders below them. In the elite group the influence of regional groups which was
far less is now increasing considerably.

Political elites in India have, however shown one disturbing feature, namely that they do not
adhere to their political ideology. As and when need arises or chance comes to change, they don't think
twice before changing their ideology. In India now the people belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled
 Tribes and other backward classes who could never think of becoming political elite, have
joined the high rank of political elite. Some of them hold great power and position and also high prestige,
therefore now in India political power belong to all sections of society which has diluted the role and
number of political elites giving Indian democracy wide coverage.
 Population Dynamics
Population explosion refers to the phenomenon of rapid growth in population experienced by
society. It is not the rapidity of the population growth itself, which is problematic in nature. In fact, in
certain societies deliberate attempts are made by the state to promote rapid population growth. Israel and
Russia can be cited as some of the examples of such societies. What makes the rapid growth of population
problematic is the inability of the economy to provide for the maintenance of the rapidly increasing
population. Demographers had tried to explain the phenomenon of population explosion with the help of
"Demographic Transition Theory", which is based on the demographic experience of European societies.
According to this theory, demographic transition in society takes place through three main phases, which
are:

Pre-Industrial Phase: This stage is characterised by a high birth rate and a high death rate
including high infant mortality rate. As a result of this, the growth rate of population is low and
population remains more or less stable. Such societies were primarily agrarian societies characterised by low
level of development in science and technology due to which modern medicinal and hygienic facilities were
absent. Thus, the death rate continued to be high which created insecurity among the parents about the
chances of survival of the newborn child. This in turn motivated them for frequent childbirth leading to
high fertility

Early Industrialisation Phase: The growth of science and technology and consequent economic
development leads to an improvement in drinking water facilities, improved sanitation and knowledge of
hygiene, development of medical science lead to control over various epidemics and endemic diseases. As a
result of all these developments the death rate experiences a steep decline. Even infant mortality comes to
be controlled. However, the birth rate continues to be high due to numerous factors ,viz. low status of
women, influence of religion which extols childbirth, labour-intensive nature of economy which demands low
level of skills but large manpower, traditional outlook of the population which creates an aversion to the
adoption of family planning techniques etc. It is during this phase of high birth rate and low death rate in
the underdeveloped economy when the problem of population explosion rises.

The Phase of Advanced Industrial Societies: Here death is further checked because of
improvements in medicine and other aspects of social and natural environment. Participation in the process
of production in industries requires highly specialised skills. So prolonged training and education is needed to
make individuals economically productive. Thus need for proper bringing up of children within limited
resources forces the parents to restrict the family size. Moreover, improved status of women, their
participation in modern occupations and greater awareness of the mother’s health etc, are other factors
which motivate people to restrict the number of children. And the easy availability of birth control
measures due to innovation in the birth control technology provides the means for reducing the birth rate
and hence birthrate also declines. These societies again reached the stage of stable population size
characterised by low birthrate and low death rate it.

India at present is passing through the second stage i.e. Early Industrial Phase and hence, is
experiencing explosive growth in population, as can be seen from the fact that India's population nearly
doubled itself over a period of 30 years. The provisional figures released by 2011 census has estimated
population of 1.2 1 billion which is a matter of concern for a country like India.

Death and mortality

Like fertility, mortality too has its many social consequences. In the past and medical facilities
were not available in many societies death rate or in other words mortality rate was very high. Most of
the women died at a time of delivery of the child. In very many cases death came because there was no
proper diagnosis. In case of India, for a very long time the country was known for its high mortality rate.
The rate was very high because:

 most of the people lived a life of poverty. They did not get sufficient food to maintain themselves,
less to talk of nutritive food. Western medical facilities even in the urban areas were inadequate.
These did not reach the rural areas at all.
 The people, particularly in the rural areas, were not very health conscious. They had no health
education and were ignorant of the importance of health.
 The married couple did not realise that their health deteriorated with the number of children.
 Child and infant mortality rate was very high, because the parents could not afford good diet for
their children.
 Medical facilities in the country were very costly and only a few rich could afford that.

Size and growth of population in India

India is the second most populous country in the world ranking only after China. In the census
2011 (provisional figures) the population of India is estimated to be one 2.1 billion. 18 crore people have
been added since the last census (2001). It means on an average 18 million people are added to India every
year. In the first post-independence census, taken in 1951, the population stood at 360 million.

Three factors determine the change in size of population of any country i.e. how many
persons are born, how many persons die, and how many persons are added to the population after
considering the number of persons leaving the country and number of persons coming into the country.
Implications of the size and growth of population

The size of the population of India is itself staggering and it is growing at a high rate.
Despite intensive efforts to development programmes, their achievements have not been able to keep pace
with the needs of the growing population.

The per capita production of foodgrains has increased, but only marginally because of the high
growth rate of population. The housing shortage has also been increasing over the years. The norms for the
health and medical services have not been met. The upward trend in gross and net national product is not
reflected in the per capita income to the same extent. The situation related to unemployment and
underemployment reflects the inability of the employment market to absorb the pressures of increasingly
large labour force

Fertility

Fertility, refers to the actual reproductive performance of individual or a group. The birth
rate crude (taking only children born alive into consideration) is an important measure of fertility. Several
factors have contributed to the high fertility rate in Indian women like:

 high fertility rate has been strongly supported by religions and social institutions in India, leading to
appropriate norms about family size.
 Among the Hindus, a man expected to go through various stages of his life while performing his
duties attached to each stage. Marriage is considered one such duty. For Hindu women, marriage is
considered essential, because it is the only sacrament she's entitled to, though the Hindu man goes
through several sacraments throughout his life.
 Till recently, the custom in India required that girls to be married off before they entered puberty.
Even today, despite legislation forbidding the marriage of girls before the age of 18 years, many girls
are married off before they attain this age. In India, traditionally women start childbearing at an
early age, and continue to do so till she reaches the age at which they are no longer biologically
capable of bearing child.
 As in traditional societies, in India too, great emphasis is laid on bearing children. Women, who does
not bear child, is looked down upon in society. In fact, the new daughter-in-law attains a rightful
status in the family only after she produces a child, preferably a son.
 The preference for sons is deeply ingrained in the Indian culture. Sons are required for extending the
family-line and for looking after the parents in their old age. Among the Hindus, a son is desired not
only for the continuation of the family line and for providing security in old age, but also for
ceremoniously lighting the funeral pyre and, thus, effecting the salvation of his father’s soul. The
 preference for sons is so high in Indian society that a couple may continue to have several daughters
and still not stop childbearing in the hope of having at least one son.
 In Indian society, children are considered to be gifts of God, and people believe that it is not up to
them to decide on the number of children. High infant and child mortality rates also contribute to a
large family size. A couple may have a large number of children in the hope that at least few of
them will survive to reach adulthood. The low status of women is also a contributing factor to high
fertility. Women, unquestionably accept excessive childbearing without any alternative avenues for
self-expression.
 Children in Indian society have great economic, social, cultural as well as religious value. Fertility of
Indian women is high, as often there is some economic incentive to having a large number of children
as it provides additional source of income in case of poor families.
 Almost all the religion in India are against the use of contraceptive which again leads to high fertility
rate.

It is the combination of several factors, that contribute towards the high fertility rate in
India. While considering the factors contributing to high fertility, it is also necessary to consider traditional
Indian norms which regulate the reproductive behaviour of individuals.

Implications of high fertility

Apart from contributing in a big way to the population problem of the country, high fertility
affect the family and, in turn society in many ways. Women are tied down to child–bearing and child-
rearing for the best years of their productive lives. They are, therefore, denied the opportunity to explore
other avenues for self-expression and self-development.

Excessive childbearing affects their own health and that of their children. Looking after a large
number of children puts further strain on the physical and emotional resources of such women.

The burden of providing for a large family sits heavily on the breadwinner of the family. The
constant struggle to maintain a subsistence level is exhausting. To escape from the problems of everyday
life, he may take to drinking. This would lead to further deterioration of the economic and emotional well-
being of the family.

The children, often unwanted, unloved and neglected, are left to their own devices, to make
life bearable the children in large families often have to start working at a very early age to supplement
the slender financial resources of the family. They are, therefore denied the opportunity to go to school
and get educated. The girl child is the worst sufferer who are often not sent to school at all or is
withdrawn from school at an early age to help her mother in carrying out domestic chores and to look
after her younger siblings when the mother is at work.

Mortality

Various measures of mortality are employed in its analysis, but the three basic measures are:

 Crude Death Rate : It is the ratio of total registered deaths occurring in a specified calendar year to
the total midyear population multiplied by 1000.
 Expectation of life at birth: The average expectation of life at birth is a good measure of the level
of mortality because it is not affected by the age structure of the population.
 Infant mortality rate : Infants are defined as those children who are in the first year of their life in
countries like India where health conditions are poor, infant deaths account for a substantial number
of all deaths. Infant mortality rate is, therefore often used as an indicator for determining the
social economic status of the country and the quality of life in it.

There is a decline in mortality rate in India due to public health and disease control measures,
which were mostly imported from the developed countries. These include vaccines against many
communicable diseases, eradication of killer diseases like plague and smallpox and extension of health and
medical services. The effect of severe famines have also been considerably reduced by preventive and relief
measures. But still much remains to be done to bring mortality rate further down.

The decline in the death rate and high birth rate have been the main factors responsible for
the rapid growth of population. The increased average life expectancy at birth has resulted in a high
proportion of persons in the younger age group. In India aged persons, do not necessarily contribute to the
national income of the family income. They have to be looked after, and expenditure on their health and
medical needs has to be met. When strong supports are not provided by the joint family, the burden falls
of society. Old-age homes or foster care homes for the aged have to be provided from the state funds.
Many of the state governments have introduced various schemes to provide pension to the old, but still
much needs to be done to save older people and provide them a decent life when they need it the most.

It has been observed that wherever infant and child mortality is high, fertility is also high and
vice versa. A couple is always interested in the number of surviving children and not in the number of
children born. Because of the high levels of infant and child mortality, a couple may go in for a large
number of children in the hope that at least a few would survive to reach adulthood. Thus, apart from
emotional trauma caused to parents, high infant and child mortality rates result in high fertility rates
leading to inflation and population.
 Age and sex are the basic characteristics or the biological attributes of any population. These
characteristics or attributes affect not only the demographic structure, but also the social, economic and
political structure of the population. Age and sex are also important factors because they are indicators of
social status. Each individual is ascribed a certain status in society on the basis of sex and age. Status and
roles are culturally determined and vary from one culture to another. Even within the same culture status
and roles may undergo changes over a period of time. While in traditional societies, age demands respect,
modern societies may be more youth oriented.

Age structure India

India is an old country with a large young population belonging to the age group of 0 - 14
years and a growing number of aged population in the age group of about 50 years. India has a large young
population because the birth rates are high and the number of children born is large. The sustained high
level of birth rates has resulted in large proportion of children and a small proportion of old population. On
the other hand, in economically developed countries the birth rates are low and less children are born. Whe
low birth rates result in a higher proportion of older people.

Rapid reductions in mortality and lengthening of the lifespan result in younger population.
This is mainly because the improvement is first experienced by the infants and children. More infants and
children survive leading to an increase in the proportion of the young persons in the population as in the
case of India. On the other hand, when the mortality level is very low there is no further scope for any
large increase in survivorship during infancy and early childhood and any improvement in mortality conditions
hence affect the older age group and lead to further ageing of the population. Such a situation prevails in
developed countries like Sweden, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, France and
Australia.

Sex ratio

The sex ratio in case of India is expressed as the number of females per 1000 males.
Generally, in most countries the overall sex ratio in the population is favourable to the females i.e. there
are more females than males in the population. When the situation is otherwise i.e. more males than
females, it is considered unusual. The population statistics available through census indicate that the sex
ratio in India has always been adverse to the females. According to the 2011 census it is estimated that
the overall sex ratio in case of India is 940 females per thousand males.

Of all the factors, high mortality in case of females appear to be the most plausible
explanation for the adverse sex ratio in India. Though biologically stronger than male, the female in India is
in a socially and culturally disadvantaged position and has been accorded a inferior status since centuries.
The death rates for the females in most age groups are higher than those for the males. Therefore it can
be said that, a sex ratio that is adverse to the females is a peculiarity of the Indian demographic picture
not seen anywhere else.

Family Planning and Welfare

The limited success in adoption of family planning in India can be explained in terms of various
socio-cultural and economic factors. It has been found that urban population is more responsive to family
planning measures than rural population. Further, educated groups accept birth control practices much more
easily. In urban areas practice of family planning has found more prominence than in case of urban poor or
the rural masses.

Socio-cultural and economic conditions in rural areas and among the poorer sections in urban areas are
largely responsible for failure of family planning measures. Some of these conditions are:

 Age at marriage: In rural areas as well as among the urban areas, marriage takes place at an early
age in spite of the legislative provisions raising minimum age at marriage. Those who marry at an
early age tend to have high fertility. Most females in rural areas marry below the age of 18 and by
the time they reach mid-40s they would have given birth to six or seven children. On the other
hand, it has been found that urban women who marry after 22 years have considerably low fertility.
Thus the traditional practices of early marriage in rural India and among the poorer sections of urban
population contributes to high fertility.

 Low status of women: The low status of women, lack of awareness regarding the consequences of
mother’s health due to frequent pregnancy and the value system in India according to which respect
is accorded to women on the basis of number of children, especially sons they have given birth to,
are responsible for high birth rate. Even the joint family system in which women as wife is accorded
a low status is responsible for high birth rate. Women themselves decide to give birth to a number
of sons and seek emotional security in their relationship with the sons. This is mainly due to the
fact that in a patrilineal joint family husband–wife relations are not characterised by high emotional
intimacy.

 Religious beliefs: Indian society continues to be predominantly rural and even in urban areas diffusion
of secular scientific education is confined only to the upper and middle classes. The worldview of the
masses as well as the urban world is dominated by religion. All religions extol childbirth and are
against any intervention in the process of reproduction. Particularly, among the Hindus, birth of a
son is considered essential which alone can save the father from ‘put hell’. Given the high infant
mortality parents tend to have many sons in order to ensure that one would survive. In the process
 number of daughters are also born leading to a large family size. The preoccupation with the birth of
a son is to be found even among educated people in the urban areas and thus the religious belief
discourages them to adopt family planning programmes. Even a Islam discourages its believers from
adopting birth control measures. The minority consciousness among the Muslims is another factor
which motivates them in giving birth to many children.

 High infant mortality and lack of provisions for old age Security: High infant mortality and the
inability of the state to provide any provision for the old-age creates a sense of insecurity and
makes the rural people rely on their male children, to provide support in the old age And hence
birth of many children is considered desirable.
 Economic reasons: Another most important factor which creates a preference for a larger family is
the high incidence of poverty in both rural and urban areas. Among the poor sections of the
population , children are viewed as an asset. The upbringing of the children does not require any
extra effort, neither do they provide for the education of the children. At a very early age both
boys and girls in the poorer families start working and begin contributing to the family income.
Similarly, in the farming sector among the middle and small farmers, the agricultural practices are
based on labour-intensive technology. Thus large sized families are considered desirable because they
supply the manpower needed for agricultural activities. Thus poverty and backwardness and lack of
modern scientific education are also responsible to a great extent in discouraging people from the
adoption of family planning measures.

Another factor which has contributed to the poor performance of family planning programs is
that Indian government has continued to rely on the bureaucratic machinery for implementing family
planning measures and for a long period the focus of family planning strategy has been primarily on birth
control, rather than making a multipronged attack on various aspects which are responsible for high birth
rate. Only in the sixth and seventh five year plans, a broader perspective was adopted in the form of
family welfare programme. However, given limited resources and continued reliance on bureaucratic
machinery, the success in controlling the population growth, remains limited.

In rural sections also, a picture more or less similar to the one given above emerges. It was
found that low castes, middle castes and Rajputs were represented in the category of agriculturists, the
lowest castes being the landless, sharecroppers and the middle castes being landowners. It was also found
that Brahmins and Harijans were not represented among agriculturists, because Brahmins were the highest
and the Harijans the lowest, most of whom performed their traditional occupations.
 Unit 7
Positivism and i t s Critique
Contents
7.1 lntroduction
7.2 Heroic Science and Origin of Positivism
7.3 Early Positivism
7.4 Consolidation of Positivism
7.5 Critiques of Positivism
7.6 Conclusion
At 1

Learning Objectives
It 16 erpected that after reading Unit 7 you will be able to learn and
discuss the following themes.
*: PosfMvi~mand its influence on sociology
*:* The sr)ntributions of Comte and Emile Durkhiem
*:* A critique of positivism
*:* Emergence of 'reflexive sociology'

7.1 lntroduction
You have already become familiar in Unit 6 with an overview of the
philosophy of social science. At this juncture, it would be a good idea for
you to focus and concentrate on specific issues and modes of enquiry. In
Unit 7 we are going t o discuss positivism, a method of enquiry that
sought to give ipmense cognitive prestige t o the discipline, and wanted
to convipce its adherents that sociology too could be a science and follow
the scientific methodological principles of empirical observation, deductive ,

reasoning, and formulation of laws or universal generalisations (see Box

7.1 for sarlie~tfeatures of positivism). As a matter of fact, this self-
perception of sociology as a science sought to serve the following three .
purposes-:
I t separated sociology as an empirical science from humanities
and philosophy.
*:* It gave a professional identity t o the sociologist who ought to
overcome the limiting identities emanating from caste, class and
gender, and think in a more objective/rationall universal fashion.
+3 The knowledge it would acquire would help us to reconstruct our
society, and create a better world.
.
Section 7.2 traces the origin of positivism and Sections 7.3 and 7.4
discuss the early developments in positivism and its consolidation. Though
positivism became a powerful sociological method, it had its critics. In
Section 7.5 we show that positivism has now lost much of its appeal.
 Positivism
Box 7.1 Salient Features of Positivism and i t s Critique
The salient features of positivism can be characterised as follows.
*:* It believes in the unity of method. Sociology i s not different from the natural
sciences as far as the method of enquiry is concerned.
*: It celebrates objectivity and value neutrality. It, therefore, separates the
knower from the known, subjectivity from objectivity, and fact from value.
O Sociology is not commonsense. I t rests on explanatory principles, which
give a universal character to the discipline.
Sociology is a formal and organised body of knowledge, characterised by
specialised skills and techno-scientific vocabulary.
* * Sociology can strive for abstraction and generalisation. Human experiences
can be explained through law-like generalisations.
*: The scientific knowledge of society can be used for social engineer';lg.

7.2 Heroic Science and Origin of Positivism

Herein lies an important question. Why did positivism grow at a certain
juncture of history, and establish itself as the leading voice in the discipline?
You already know how modern science was evolving, arousing immense
optimism, and becoming hegemonic. The scientific thinking emanating
from Bacon, Descartes and Newton, and scientific inventions and
discoveries were altering the cultural/intellectual landscape of Europe.
And eventually, the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century (see Box
7.2), as you have already learnt, was a turning point. It meant celebrating
a new age of reason, objectivity and criticality. It was l,ike coming out of
the medieval order, religious influences, and asserting that scientific
thinking would enable us to create a better world. I t was difficult to
escape the influence of the age. It was difficult not to be influenced by
the spectacular success story of science. Science became knowledge
itself: real, objective and foundational! And to survive in such a milieu
was to accept science and i t s ascending power.

- --. -
r-I Box 7.2 Triumphs of Natural Sciences in the Eighteenth Century
.-
I

1 The Enlightenment witnessed a period of spectacular triumphs i n the natural

sciences. Beginning with lssac Newton (1642-1727)
1
and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), natural science began
a conquest of the natural world, which was a
staggering success. This success did not go unnoticed
in the social sciences. Rather, as many commentators
have noted, the social sciences were born i n the
shadow of these triumphs. Furthermore, the
methodological lessons that the natural sciences
were teaching seemed to be very clear: i f the methods
of the natural science are strictly adhered to then
the spectacular success of these sciences could be
Galileo Galilei
matched i n the social sciences. The social sciences ( 1564-1 642)
I
had only to await the arrival of their Newton (Hekman 1
1
1
1986: 5).
-_____- ----- . _ . . ..
 Research Details in Box 7.2 possibly explain the origin of positivism. The assumption
Mathodologles
was that the identity of sociology as "true
knowledge" could not be established without
adopting the method of the natural sciences.
There was yet another important factor. The
new age characterised by the Industrial
Revolution, expanding trade and commerce, and
emergent bourgeoisie altered power relations
in the West. It was the time that witnessed the
lssac Newton assertion of the new elite: technologists,
(I 642- 1727) scientists and capitalists. They saw immense
possibilities i n science, and were strong
adherents of a positivistic/ scientific culture and mode of enquiry. Yes,
there were dissenting voices, say, the voices emanating from
romanticism' that critiqued the worship of science and reason, and
pleaded for imagination, subjectivity and creativity (as pointed out by
Gouldner 1970). But then, the language of science was irresistible. The
politico-economic establishment was sustaining it. Science was going to
stay, and positivism was i t s inevitable consequence.
The entire phenomenon can be understood better i f you reflect on the
self-perception of science. For instance, it i s argued that science is a
radical departure from common sense (Nagel 1961: 1-14). Well, common
sense may not necessarily be false. But common sense, unlike science, is
seldom accompanied by a search for systematic explanations - the
explanations derived from solid factual evidence. For instance, before
the advent of modern science people knew the function of the wheel.
But it was only modern science that provided us with an explanatory
principle like the frictional force t o make sense of the operation of
wheels. Likewise, the principles formulated by Newton could explain
innumerable facts: the behavior of the tides, the paths of projectiles,
and the moon's motion. It is also argued that, unlike the indeterminacy
of common sense, the language of science is more specific, focused and
pointed. It abhors all sorts of vagueness. Even though the poets may
speak of infinite stars, it would be argued, astronomers are interested
in calculating and measuring their exact number. Furthermore, science,
unlike common sense, is a distant, detached and abstract exercise.
Whereas common sense has an intimate relationship with our everyday
world, science i s essentially neutral. You may enjoy the color of the
sunset: but then, the electromagnetic theory, which provides a systematic
account of optical phenomena, retains its remoteness and abstraction.
In fact, science deliberately neglects the immediate values of things.
That is why; it is argued that science is primarily critical in spirit. Whereas
common sense tends to take things for granted, science problematises
even our most cherished beliefs. This d&s not mean that common sense
i s neccssarily false and science i s true. What distineuishes science is i t s
 Positivism
critical spirit, its insistence on empirical evidence. Here we quote the and its Critique
words of Nagel (1971: 13).
The difference between the cognitive claims of science and common sense,
which stems from the fact that the former are the products of the scientific
method, does not connote that the former are invariably true. It does follow
that while common sense beliefs are usually accepted without a critical evaluation
of the evidence available, the evidence for the conclusions of science conforms
t o standards such that a significant proportion of conclusions supported by
similar structured evidence remains in good agreement with additional factual
data when fresh data are obtained.

Many were art'culating this supremacy of science as a more reliable,

objective and critical knowledge. For instance i i Box
~ 7.3 we bring to you
Merton's '(1.972) four institutional imperatives of science.

E.
7Merton's
O
. )Four lnstitutlonal Imperatives of Science
Science is universal. The validity of a scientific statement does not depend
1
on any particularistic criterion. I t is against all sorts of ethnocentrism. It is
valid for all.
Science implies the communism of knowledge: Scientist, it is argued,
want nothing more than esteem and recognition. Scientist's findings and
discoveries, far from remaining a private property, become a collective
heritage. It is this shared culture that enables science to evolve, grow and
progress dramatically.
9 Science demands disinterestedness: a process of rigorous scrutinisation
and examination of one's findings without any bias.
9 Science is organised skepticism that distinguishes it. Everything for
science is an object of critical enquiry. There is nothing sacred or profane.
Science investigates, examines and problematises everything. That is the
success story of science.

In the self-perception of science as given in Box 7.3, you see a positive

story: a positive affirmation of the virtues of science, its ability t o
construct objective, empirical, critical and universal knowledge, which is
free from personall political bias and prejudice. In a way, it is a heroic
notion of science. Positivism was also an affirmation of this positive1
heroic science. It was positive because it meant certainties of science.
And it also meant a positive attitude towards life: using science for
improving our lot.

7.3 Early Positivism

Positivism, as you can gather, emerged out of a situation in which there
was tremendous optimism centered on the cognitive power of science.
As mentioned i n Unit 6, you also know that modern sociology evolved at
a specific juncture of European history when the entire social landscape
altered because of the scientific 'revolution, the Enlightenment and the .
French Lwlution. It was indeed a new age, and sociology as a formal1
 Research
Methodologfes
academic discipline was trying to make sense of it. In fact, the roots of
early positivism could be found in the first half of the nineteenth century
in France. Imagine the state of post-revolutionary France. There was a
significant change in the domain of knowledge. The separation of science
and philosophy became inevitable; new scientific journals started
appearing, and a close link between science and industry was established.
It was felt that there was a single scientific method applicable to all
fields of study. Possibly Saint Simon (1760-1825), one of the early
sociologists, articulated this aspiration rather sharply. A scientist, he
felt, i s one who predicts, and it is this power of prediction that gives
him the power. He, therefore, pleaded strongly for extending the scientific
outlook from the physical sciences to the study of human beings. It was
an urge to create some kind of a social physics so that sociology could
accomplish i t s historical mission: completing the unfinished agenda of
the Industrial Revolution.
Indeed, this close affiriity with science gave birth to positivism. Auguste
Comte (1798-1857), the founder o f modern
sociology, established positivism as the most
cherished doctrine of sociology (see also Unit 1).
Yet, like Saint Simon, Comte too was witnessing
the revolutionary transformation. In a way, he
saw the contradiction between the two social
forces: theological1 military and scientificl
industrial. Like a visionary, he f e l t that this
contradiction could be resolved only by the triumph
Saint Simon
of the scientificl industrial society. Scientists, as
he saw all around, were replacing theologians as
the moral guardians of the new social order, and industrialists were
replacing the warriors. Not solely that. Comte too shared the
Enlightenment assertion that it was possible for science t o grasp the
workings of the world. He believed that positivist or scientific knowledge
was the inevitable outcome of the progressive growth of the individual
mind as well as the historical development of human knowledge.
From 1871 to 1823 Comte and Saint Simon collaborated so closely that it
was almost impossible t o distinguish the contributions of the two. It was
at this juncture that they spoke of social physics, and the need to
discover natural and immutable laws of progress which are as necessary
as the law of gravity. But then they separated, and eventually Comte
emerged as an independent scholar. I t was during 1830-1892 that he
published six volumes of Course of Positive Philosophy. And finally, during
1851-1854, he published four volumes of System of Positive Politics.
What made Comte immortal in the discipline was his celebrated 'Law of
three stages' (see also Unit 1). First, he spoke of tne theological stage:
a stage in which the mind explains phenomena or mundane occurrences
by ascribing them to the unfathomable gods. The fact i s that without
 Positivism
some guide one cannot begin to make systematic observations. And and its Critique
sciences in their infancy could not escape the questions relating to the
essences of phenomena and their ultimate origins to which theologlcal
answers are most appropriate. Second, he spoke of the metaphysical
stage in which abstract forces, powers and essences, rather than spiritual
forces, are considered responsib!e for worldly affat:s. And fiqally, as
Comte argued, there was a positive or scientific stage in which we
abandon the search for ultimate oria,ins, purposes, or abstract forces,
and become more concrete and focused: we observe the relations between
phenomena, and arrive at laws because the aim of positive philosophy
is t o consider all phenomena as subject to invariable natural laws (see
the example in Box 7.4).
i----- -- -. - --^--- -.---
I
Box 7.4An Example to Understandthe Deeper Meaningof Comte's Law of
Three Stages I
Let us take a simple illustration to comprehend the deeper meaning of these 1

I
three stages of knowledge, Imagine fire as a phenomenon. It i s possible to explain
it, as the Vedic hymns suggest, as a manifestation of a powerful deity called Agni.
Now Cornte would have argued that explaining fire as a manifestation of Agni i s a
theological explanation. But suppose one goes beyond these Vedic rituals, and
enters a higher stage of contemplative/abstract thought, and sees fire as something
symbolising human beings' quest for truth and purity: burning all egotistic passions
and impulses. Yes, Comte would have argued that i t i s a metaphysical explanation.
I
But then, i f you argue that fire i s just a physico-chemical phenomenon that can
.be explained in the form of a natural law, Comte would have argued that you
have finally arrived the positive stage. In other words, positivist knowledge is
empirical and universal; something that i s concrete and demonstrable. Here is a
piece of knowledge without a metaphysical1 theological significance. It demystifies
the world. So when you see the rains, you need not explain it as Indro's blessing;
nor do you see it as a manifestation of man's poetry to overcome the dryness of
his being. Instead, the rains you see, in this positivist stage, can be explained in
terms of the scientific principles of heat, cloud formation and water cycle!
-- -- -.--
. . -- ----. --

Not all branches of knowledge, argued Comte, reach the positive stage
simultaneously. The 'lower' sciences, like astronomy, mechanics, chemistry
and biology, develop fast. ~ h e s eare lower sciences because these are '
less complex, less dependent on the other sciences, and their distance
from human affairs i s far greater. But sociology, being more complex,
and more near to everyday life, reaches the positive stage quite late.
Comte was, however, hopeful that even for sociology the time had finally
arrived. It could now project itself as a positive science, analyse social
phenomena, and discover the laws governing the relations among them.
Sociology, for him, i s the queen of the sciences because without the
guidance of i t s Laws, the discoveries of the lower sciences cou1.d not be
utilised t o their maximum advantage for humanity.
There a r e two kinds of sciences, namely, analytic and svnthetic. Phvsics
,- --
ant :h m-tirtry can be raid t o be analytic because they establish laws

among isolated phenomena. Biology is synthetic because it is impossible

 Research to explain an organ apart from the living creature as a whole. Likewise,
Methodologies
according t o Comte, sociology is synthetic because everything, be it
religion or state, has to be studied in the context of the entire society.'
It i s not difficult to draw the implications of positivism. There is no free
will in mathematics and physics. Likewise, as Comte thought, there is
no free will in sociology. Sociology. Comte believed, could determine
what is, what will be, and what should be. In other words, social
phenomena are subject to strict determinism.
Let us understand what it means. Even a child learning elementary
mathematics would t e l l you that 2+2=4. If you and I want i t t o be
different, it cannot be altered. In other words, 2+2= 4 i s an iron law,
say, like the law of gravitation. It prevails irrespective of our subjective
states of mind.
, That is precisely the kind of knowledge positivism is striving for. Suppose
as a Marxist you put forward a sociological law that socialism is inevitable
because that is the way history progresses. You are arguing like a positivist,
and equating Marxism with an invariable natural law like the law of
gravitation that exists, no matter what kind of life projects you and I
have, and what kind of thoughts we cherish.
Yes, Comte was a great proponent of science. He believed in the essential
Enlightenment notion of progress and in the arrival of the new age of
scientific objectivity. Yet, let us not forget that Comte was also a great
moralist. He was deeply concerned about social order and i t s moral
foundation. In fact, he sougt,t to use positivist sociology t o reconstruct
his society. No wonder, positivist sociology, for him, would act like a
religion, of course a secular religion for humankind. This led Nisbet
(1967:58) t o comment that 'positive sociology for Comte is simply
medievalism minus Christianity'. Look at the state of the French society
Comte was confronting. True, the revolution was a turning point. But
then, it also led to new problems, which, as he felt, were quite disturbing.
For instance, he could not give his consent t o the prevalent 'anarchy'
leading to exaggerated individualism. It was, for him, a disease of modern
civilisation. Nor did he give his consent to those who pleaded for divorce
rights. His anxiety was that it would lead to the breakdown of the
centrality of the family; it would also weaken the community. This moral
crisis, or the crisis of order, was something that must be resolved. And it
was his conviction that the new positivist sociological knowledge could
fulfill the void, and serve the therapeutic function of religion. No wonder,
he was equally concerned about social static or restoration of order. In
fact, i f you think deeply, you would realise that Comte's positivism
conveyed the interesting message that sci-ence, despite the progressive
role it played, was also an integral component of the Establishment, 'an
ideology of order'!
 Positivism
7.4 Consolidation of Positivism and its Crltique
Auguste Comte provided the intellectual foundation of positivist sociology.
And possibly it was this French tradition that gave birth to one of the
most distinguished classical sociologists, Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917).
Durkheim consolidated and elaborated positivist sociology. In a way, the
Rules of Sociological Method that he published in 1895 gave a new
momentum t o the discipline. The subject matter of sociology, he
repeatedly emphasised, is the domain of social facts that cannot be
comprehended by any other discipline. It is, therefore, important to
know how he defined social facts.
You can understand it better through an example from your everyday
life. lmagine one fine morning you choose to walk barefoot. Nobody has
compelled you to do so; it i s your free choice, your own decision. But
then, imagine one evening you decide to visit a temple, and offer your
r
prayers. Before entering the temple you remove your shoes, wash your
hands, and walk barefoot.
Do you see a qualitative difference in these two experiences? Yes, there
i s a significant difference. In the second case you are not really free.
Well, you may argue that it is you who have chosen to walk barefoot
inside the temple complex. But that is because you have internalised the
prevalent practice so well that it looks almost natural and spontaneous.
lmagine what would have happened had you tried to enter the temple
without removing your shoes. You would have experienced severe
constraint and resistance. From the temple authorities t o the other
devotee: all would object to your act and regard it as an insult to the
sacred space. In other words, walking barefoot inside the temple is a
fact that exists out there as a thing. It has an independent force that
transcends your own will. If you disobey the practice, you would be
forced, coerced, isolated or ridiculed. Such facts, according to Durkheim,
are called social facts.
Everybody eats, drinks and sleeps. But not all such facts can be called
social. Then, there would be no differewe between biologicall physiological
facts and social facts. In fact, there are some distinctive features of
social facts. First, social facts exist outside you. Imagine a tree that you
are seeing from your window. It has a reality of its own. Even i f you
close your eyes and refuse to see it, the tree exists as it is. Likewise,
Durkheim (1964: I)explained that
When I fulfill my obligations as brother, husband, or citizen, when I execute my
contracts, I perform duties which are defined, externally to myself, and my acts,
i n law and i n custom. Even i f they conform to my sentiments and I feel their
reality subjectively, such reality is still objective, for I did not create them; I
merely inherited through my education.

'These facts are indeed different. The currency you use in your economic
exchange, the language you speak in the process of communication, the
I Research
Methodologies
rituals you celebrate as a member of a religious community, all these are
social facts. Their existence does not depend on your or my will. As
Durkheim (1964: 2) put it, 'here are ways of acting, thinking, and
feeling that present the noteworthy property of existing outside the
individual consciousness'.
Second, social facts are endowed with coercive power. True, in our
everyday life we do not experience this constraint. The reason is that,
becagse of habit, socialisation and internalisation, we tend to experience
social facts as natural and spontaneous. But then, as Durkheim (1964: 2-
3) reminded, 'if I do not submit to the conventions of my society, i f in
my dress I do not conform to the customs observed in my country and in
my class, the ridicule I provoke, the social isolation in which I am kept,
produce, although i n an attenuated form, the same effects as a
punishment in the strict sense of the word'.
Third, social facts as things need to be distinguished from their individual
manifestations. In fact, Durkheim held that social facts 'acquire a body,
a tangible form, and constitute a reality in their own right, quite distinct
from the individual facts which produce it'. For example, codified legal
and moral rules, or articles of faith wherein religious groups condense
their beliefs; none of these can be found entirely reproduced in the
applications made of them by individuals. Yet, sociologically it i s important
to categorise their tangible, crystallised aspects as social facts, not their
individual manifestations.
The meaning of 'social' in social facts is, therefore, clear. As Durkheim
(1964: 3) stated, 'their source is not in the individual, their substratum
can be no other than society, either the political society as a whole or
someone of the partial groups it includes, such as religious denominations,
political, literary, and occupational associations'.
To sum up, you can borrow Durkheim's (1964: 13) own words, and
conclude:
A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the
individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general
throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right
independent of its individual manifestations.

You can understand Durkheim's scientific sociology better i f you look at

the 'rules' he prescribed for studying social facts. One such rule which
has often been talked about is that it is absolutely necessary to observe
social facts as things. What does it mean? A thing i s a thing because i t s
facticity cannot be altered even i f you and I want it. It i s in this sense
that external objects like a tree, a table and a chair exist as things. If
you wish to observe a thing as it is, you should not confuse it with your
own ideas and sentiments. A tree needs to be seen as a tree, even i f you
hate trees. In other words, almost like Francis Bacon, Durkheim would
argue that our ideas and sentiments or 'idols' should not prevent us
 Positivism
from seeing a thing as it is (see Unit 6 for the discussion of Bacon's and its Critique
ideas). A sociologist must follow this fundamental lesson of scientific
objectivity. Take, for instance, marriage as a social fact. As an individual,
you may not like the institution of marriage. But when as a sociologist
you plan to study marriage as a social fact, retain your objectivity,
separate your own likes and dislikes from facts, and see it as a thing
codified in marriage laws, religious traditions and social customs. In
other words, it is like separating the knower from the known facts from
values. It is similar to the way a physicist studies the behavior of atoms,
or a geologist studies the formation of mountains. Durkheim (1964: 30)
elaborated further.
Social facts ...q ualify as things. Law is embodied i n codes; the currents of daily
life are recorded i n statistical figures and historical monuments; fashions are
preserved in costumes; and taste i n works of art. By their very nature they tend
towards an independent existence outside the individual consciousness, which
they dominate. In order to disclose their character as things, it i s unnecessary
to manipulate them ingeniously.

Likewise, Durkheim recalled Rene Descartes, and reminded us of the

need for overcoming all presuppositions. For Durkheim (1964: 32) it is
like overcoming 'inferior' faculties Like emotions, sentiments and feelings.
Only then is it possible for the sociologist 'to emancipate himself from
the fallacious ideas that dominate the mind of the layman'. No wonder,
Durkheim (1964: 35) pleaded strongly for a scientific vocabulary in the
discipline. Sociologists must avoid the indeterminacy of common sense
language, and be clear about the specificity of the concept they use.
The subject matter of every sociological study should comprise a group of
phenomena defined in advance by certain common external characteristics, and
all phenomena so defined should be included within this group.

It is equally important to avoid all sorts of vagueness while studying/

observing an object. The physicist substitutes for the vague impressions
of temperature and electricity by the visual representations of the
thermometer and the electrometer. Likewise, when a sociologist studies
social facts, s/he should not be carried away by their individual
manifestations. Instead, it is important to find their expression in tangible
and crystallised forms; for example, in legal codes, moral regulations,
popular proverbs, statistical figures and religious conventions. Take an
example. Suppose you are studying caste as a social phenomenon. It i s
possible that Ambedkar and Gandhi might have experienced and responded
to caste hierarchy in different ways. But i f you are practicing Durkheimian
positivist sociology, you need not to be carried away by these individual
manifestations. Instead, your task i s to see caste as a thing, a structure
rooted in codified laws, religious sanctions and social customs.
An important characteristic of science is its explanatory power. As sociology
i s scientific, it must explain social facts. For Durkheim, sociological
explanations are objective and independent and cannot be reduced into
psychological terms. I t was i n this sense t h a t Durkheirn (1964: 102)
 Research
Methodologies
made an interesting point that 'a whole i s not identical with the sum of
i t s parts'. It acquires an independent character that is qualitatively
different from those of its component parts. Society is, therefore, not
identitical with the sum of individuals. It is, of course, true that without
individuals there is no society. But society transcends the individual.
While explaining social facts, it is important to understand the supremacy
of the collective over the individual. Durkheim (1964: 104) clarified that
The group thinks, feels, and acts quite differently from the way in which its
members would were they isolated. If, then, we begin with the individual, we
shall be able to understand nothing of what takes place in the group. In a word,
there is between psychology and sociology the same break i n continuity as
between biology and the physiochemical sciences. Consequently every time that
a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we
could be sure that the explanation is false.

I t was in this sense that Durkheim, as his other substantial works suggest,
provided sociological explanations for social facts like suicide, division of
labor and moral education. In fact, as Durkheim (1964: 110) categorically
stated, 'the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among
the social facts preceding it and not among the states of individual
consciousness'. Likewise, the function of a social fact needs to be seen
in its relation to some social end. Take, for instance, punishment as a
social fact. For Durkheim, i t s cause is the intensity of the collective
sentiments that the crime offends. Likewise, its function is to maintain
these very sentiments at the same degree of intensity. No wonder, for
him, when the teacher punishes the child i t s function is not to cause
physical suffering to the concerned child but t o restore the sanctity of
moral order in the classroom. To explain a social phenomenon, as
Durkheim argued, is t o find its cause as well as i t s function. And both
cause and function are essentially social, not to be reduced to the individual

The craft of scientific sociology that Durkheim constructed gave a new

momentum to the discipline. Sociology, he asserted, must come out of
the influence of philosophy, and establish itself as a science. The principle
of causality, he believed, can be applied to social phenomena. And sociology,
as a result, wou1.d be free from ideological analysis; it would be neither
individualistic, nor socialistic. Instead, sociology would be an objective
study of social facts. This objectivity might reduce the 'popularity' of
the discipline. But then, as i f speaking like a prophet, Durkheim (1964:
146) said,
We believe, on the contrary, that the time has come for sociology t o spurn
popular success, so t o speak, and to assume the exacting character befitting
every science. It will then gain in dignity and authority what it will perhaps lose
in popularity...Assuredly, the time when it will be able to play this role successfully
is still far off. However, we must begin to work now, in order to put it in condition
to fill this role some day.

Let us not forget that Durkheim, despite his strong plea for scientific
sociology, was deeply concerned about the moral foundation of society,
 i t s stability and order. Possibly modern1 industrial societies, and their ~ositivism
and its Critique
implicit differentiation, specialisation and division of labor made him
confront a new problem. Gone are the days of simple societies
characterised by 'mechanical solidarity'. But then, can modern societies
survive merely through egotistic individualism and selfish interests? No
wonder, he evolved a strong critique of utilitarianism and its celebration
of the atomised individual trying to maximise cine's pleasuie. Instead,
Durkheim continued to retain his belief in the moral supremacy of the
cotlective, and he saw that the increasing differentiation in a modern
society, paradoxically, would lead to more and more mutual dependence
and create 'organic solidarity'. I t was this consistent search for the
basis of moral order that led him to explore the domain of religion and
of the sacred, and school and moral education. In a way, in both Auguste
Comte and Emile Durkheim you are witnessing an endeavour to reconcile
positivist sociology with social order and stability.
- Positivism, it seems, i s both an assertion of science as well as a quest for
order and stability. Does it mean that science i s yet another form of
ideology? (See Unit 1, where a similar question has been answered in the
affirmative.)
Let us now complete the Reflection and Action 7.1 exercise to check our
own understanding of Durkheim's idea of social facts.

..........................
Reflection and Action 7.1
For Durkheim social facts are external and coercive and social facts should be
treated as things to be studied through concrete expression i n legal codes
religious expressions, proverbs, customs etc. Based on the above notion of social
facts, write on a separate sheet of paper your answers to the following questions.
Questions
** What can be given as examples, based on your own experience, t o
substantiate Durkhiem's statement that social facts are coercive?
O Do you think that human beings are constantly seeking to escape the binding
aspects of society; i f they do so, in what way do they achieve this? Give
examples.
I 4. After collecting a few proverbs relating to gender relations, find out i n
I
I what way do they capture the status of women? I
L ~ ~ - ~ , ~ ~ - - , , - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ J

7.5 Critiques of Positivism

Yes, i n the French sociological tradition you saw the evolution and
consolidation of positivism. But then it reached the other parts of the
world and became a powerful sociological method. Positivism had i t s
appeal. It sought to give a 'scientific status' to the discipline. The search
for precision, objectivity, causality and value neutrality made it acceptable.
This positivist social science found i t s logical culmination in the cult of
numbers, in the mathematisation of social phenomena, in the urge to
reduce qualitative human experiences into quantified statistical figures.
And it has also i t s remarkable achievements. '
 Research But then, you can guess that not everyone can feel comfortable with
Methodologies
positivism. First, it is possible t o say that what i s applicable i n the
domain of nature is not necessarily applicable i n the domain of human
society. Because, unlike nature, society consists of self reflexive agents
who think, argue, contest, and through their practices and actions
transform the world. Hence society cannot be subject t o abstract1
universal generalisations. Positivism, it i s alleged, undermines the
creativity, reflexivity and agency of social actors. As you have already
learnt i n Unit 6, interpretative sociology was a refreshing departure
from the positivist tradition.
Second, it can also be argued that the so-called 'ethical neutrality' of
positivism reduces it t o a mere technique, separated from moral1 political
'
issues. And, paradoxically, it is precisely the politics of positivism. The
establishment to legitimise itself often uses i t s scientific nature. In other
words, positivism can prove to be pro-establishment, status-quoist, non-
critical and non-reflexive. In the twentieth century this critique of
positivism came rather sharply' from critical theorists, or the adherents
of the Frankfurt School Marxism. What is asserted is that science has
lost i t s emancipatory power. Instead, science itself has become an integral
component of the establishment. In fact, the experience of war, large-
scale violence, the growth of fascism, the spread of the "culture industry",
and the emergence of the 'authoritarian personality', in other words,
the darkness of the twentieth century led these thinkers t o speak of the
'dialectic of enlightenment'. No wonder, from Adorno to Horkheimer to
Marcuse, the central thrust of their argument was that positivist science
was nothing but a form of instrumental rationality leading to domination
and manipulation of human and natural resources. They critiqued this
instrumental rationality, and pleaded for a more critical, reflexive,
qualitative and emancipatory social science.
Third, as you have already learnt in Unit 6, post-modernists deconstruct
the very foundation of science. No wonder, for post-modernists, positivism
loses its cognitive power and legitimacy. And in a way the distinction ,
between objective science and subjective narrative gets eroded, sociology
becomes yet another narrative filled with biographies and life histories,
and a non-positivist1 post-modern sociology does not look fundamentally
different from cultural studies!
As you understand, positivism emerged at a time when sociology was
trying to'establish itself as a science. And positivism continues to have
its appeal (as was also pointed out at the end of Unit 4). But then, with
the passage of time, with new experiences leading t o disillusionment
with the so called 'neutrality' of science, and with new sensitivity to
reflexivity and creativity, we see the growing critique of positivism.
Positivism has indeed lost much of i t s appeal. You can understand this
changing intellectual milieu i f you concentrate on the following two specific
critiques of positivism.
A) Reflexive sociology resisting methodological dualism Positivism
and i t s Critique
Reflexive sociology, as put forward by Alvin W. Gouldner (1920-1980), is
a meaningful alternative to positivism. Gouldner (1970), an American
sociologist, wrote with a high degree of moral sensitivity, and critiqued
positivism. He warned us of the methodological dualismQ implicit in
positivism. This dualism separates the knower from the known, subject
from object, fact from value. Not solely that. It views that i f the
sociologist engages politically, emotionally and aesthetically with the object
of his1 her study, the 'scientific nature' of the discipline would suffer.
This cold objectivity, as Gouldner (1970: 496) would argue, i s essentially
an expression of alienation, that is, the alienation of the sociologist
from hislher own self. It i s like Looking at sociological knowledge as just
a piece of amoral technique.
Methodological Dualism is based upon a fear; but this is a fear not so much of
those being studied as of the sociologist's own self. Methodological Dualism is, at
bottom, concerned t o constitute a strategy for coping w i t h the feared
vulnerability of the scholar's self. It strives to free him from disgust, pity, anger,
from egoism or moral outrage, from his passions and interest, on the supposition
that it is a bloodless and disembodied mind that works best. It also seeks to
insulate the scholar from the values and interests of his other roles and
commitments, on the dubious assumption that these can be anything but blinders.
It assumes that feeling is the blood enemy of intelligence, and that there can be
an unfeeling, unsentimental knower.

Gouldner (1970: 493), however, pleads for methodological monisme,

and asserts that the separation between the knower and the known
must be overcome, because you cannot know others without knowing
yourself. That i s why, self-reflexivity i s absolutely important. To know
others a sociologist cannot simply study them, but must also listen to
and confront himself1 herself. Knowing i s not an impersonal effort but
'a personalised effort by whole, embodied men'. Reflexive sociology
invites methodological monism, and, therefore, alters the very meaning
of knowledge. It does not remain merely a piece of information. Instead,
it becomes an awareness! It generates self-awareness and new sensitivity.
Reflexive sociology, you would appreciate, i s heavily demanding. Unlike
positivist sociology in which you can remain 'neutral' and 'apolitical',
reflexive sociology demands your moral commitment and ethical
engagement. You cannot separate your life from your work. Gouldner
(1970: 495) wrote,
Reflexive Sociology, then, is not characterised by what it studies. It is distinguished
neither by the persons and the problems studied nor even by the techniques
and instruments used in studying them. It i s characterised, rather, by a relationship
it establishes between being a sociologist and being a person, between the role
and the man performing it. Reflexive sociology embodies a critique of the
conventional conception of segregated scholarly roles and has a vision of an
alternative. It aims at transforming the sociologist's relation to his work.

Take an example. Suppose you wish to study the phenomenon called

'slum culture'. A way of doing it is, of course, a highly positivistic1
technical research. You hire research assistants, send them to the
 Research particular slum with a questionnaire, and instruct them to distribute
Methodologles
copies of i t after random sampling. The data you gather get classified
and quantified, and you make your conclusions. These are the conclusions
derived from 'hard' facts. And never do you feel the need to engage
yourself as a person with the slum. In other words; your dispassionate
6xercise is not different from the way a mathematiiian solves a puzzle,
or a scientist works in a lab.
Now Gouldner's. reflexive sociology would oppose this kind of research.
Instead, it would make you reflect on your own self and your politics and
morality. Possibly you are urban, upper class, Enitish speaking and relatively
privileged. What does it mean for you to understand the slum culture?
Isn't it the fact that their suffering cannot be separated from your
privilege? Can you understand them without questioning this asymmetrical
power? These questions born out of self-reflexivity would possibly create
a new sociology which, far from objectifying the world, tries to create a
new one. Possibly new trends in sociological research emanating from
feminist and Dalit movements resemble this sort of reflexive sociology.
Because in these research trends one sees not just technical objectivity,
but essentially a high degree of empathy, an urge to understand suffering,
and a striving for an alternative praxis.
8) Agency and structure: process of structuration
Another significant critique of positivism has come from Anthony Giddens,
a leading sociologist of our time. Giddens' (1976) book, New Rules of
Sociological Method, is a turning point. It is a text in which he studied
the intellectual trajectory of the discipline, and negotiated with
interpretative traditions, and reflexed on a set of new rules. It does
offer an alternative to positivistic1 scientific sociology. Giddens is
categorical about the fact that nature and human society are two different
realms of enquiry. Nature is not a human production, but society is
being perpetually created, renewed and altered by human agents. That
is why there are limits to natural science methodology in sociology. In
sociology, argues Giddens (1976: 13), 'those who s t i l l wait for a Newton
are not only waiting for a train that won't arrive, they're in the wrong
station altogether'. This seems to be the reason why he began his
intellectual conversation with phenomenological/ ethno methodological
traditions, the way these 'interpretative' sociologies seek to understand
meanings, that is, the meanings that conscious human actors attach to
the world, and construct their knowledge of the everyday world they live
in. Although, for Giddens, there are possibilities in these traditions, we
need to see beyond. Because the meaning you and I attach to the world
has to be situated in a social context, and asymmetrical resources and
capabilities often characterise this context. Take an example. Imagine
yourself as a student in the classroom. It is, of course, true that you are
not a puppet-silently performing the prescribed 'role'. Instead, you are
a creative agent attaching meanings, and creating an inter-subjective
world called the classroom.
 But, then, there i s a problem. Your agency1 freedom is not unlimited. Positivism
and its Critique
Because differential/ unequal resources might characterise the classraom:
teacher versus student. Even a simple site like the classroom is, in fact,
a site of conflict and contestation. Giddens (1976), therefore, argues
that interpretative sociology alone i s not sufficient; it i s equally important
to be aware of the complex relationship between the agency and structure.
, This criticall creative engagement with methodological issues led him to
put forward a set of rules which can be summarised as follows.
First, sociology i s not concerned with a "pre-given" universe of objects.
Instead, sociology deals with a world that is constituted or provided by
the active doings of subjects. I t i s in this sense that 'the production and
reproduction of society has to be treated as a skilled performance on
the part of i t s members' (Giddens 1976: 160). Let us understand it.
Suppose you are studying a phenomenon called caste. Even a rigid system
like caste, you realise, i s not pre-given. Instead, human agents are
perpetually creating and transforming what we call a caste society. That
i s why, lower caste movements or Dalit movements or diversent reforms
take place, and the social reality that sociologists study remains perpetually
vibrant and alive. It is a skilled performance which i s in perpetual flux.
Second, although society i s a skilled performance, the creativity of the
social actor, as you have just learnt, i s not unlimited since all of us,
irrespective of our creativity, are historically located social actors, working
under certain conditions. It i s in this context that we ought to be aware
of the limits1 constraints provided by the social structure. But then,
what i s interesting about Giddens (1976: 161) i s that he i s talking about
the duality of structureb. 'Structure must not be conceptualised as
simply placing constraints upon human agency, but as enabling'. An
example would make this point clear. Imagine that you are speaking a
Language. No matter how creative you are, you cannot speak whatever
you wish. You have to follow the grammar: a set of rules. But then, it i s
not just an experience of constraint. Language also enables you to speak.
Moreover, a living language i s not static; through their linguistic expressions
and practices people make changes in the structure of the language.
This i s what Giddens (1976: 161) regards as the process of structuration@
and says that for him, 'to enquire into the structuration of social practices
i s to seek to explain how it comes about that structures are constituted
through action and, reciprocally, how action i s constituted structurally'.
In a way, the process of structuration enables him to overcome the
duality of structure and agency. Yes, you cannot imagine yourself without
the 'rules' that the structure provides. But at the same time, you are
. not a puppet. You can innovate, experiment, and alter the structure.
Third, Giddens asserts that a sociologist cannot escape the language
that lay actors use to make sense of their world. That i s why, meaningful
sociological research requires immersion@in the form of life which the
sociologist seeks to study. Immersion does not, however, mean that the
4 117*3
 Research sociologist has to become a 'full member' of the community. This only
Methodologies
means the ability 'to participate in it as an ensemble of practices'.
And finally, sociological concepts, asserts Giddens, are based on double
hermeneutic". The reason is that social actors themselves have already
interpreted society as being a skilled performance, and hence the
sociologists further reinterpret it within their theoretical schemes,
mediating ordinary and technical language. About hermeneutics you will
read in Unit 8.
These debates and contestations, you need to realise, have enriched the
discipline. And it is important that you become aware of these multiple
voices within the discipline.
Let us,at the end of our discussion, complete the Reflection and Action
7.2 exercise.

r-------------------------- 1
I Reflection and Action 7.2 I

iI
I
Structures are as much constraining as enabling, people constantly innovate and
I
'
interpret the given structures.
Explain the above statement with an illustration from a contemporary situation
I
and write a short note on the process of structuration. Discuss your note with
I
I fellow learners of M A Sociology at your Study Center. I
J,-,,,-,,----,,,-,----,,,,L
-

*it is a request to the Academic Counselor to organise an essay competition on

this topic and send the top ten essays to the Coordinator of MSO 002. The best
essay will have a surprise appearance.

7.6 Conclusion
In Unit 7 we have discussed the antecedents of positivism in the context
of tremendous strides made in the sciences and of the general milieu of
Enlightenment. Auguste Comte is considered the founder of sociology
for he tried to conceive of similar methodology for the social sciences
and the study of society. Positivism, as we can see, had a tremendous
impact on sociology and.in some ways helped establish it as a discipline.
The propositions and theories of Comte have, however, been refined
especially in the case of Durkhiem. He, by far, has been responsible for
defining the subject matter of sociology and in laying out the rules to
study society. Subsequent thinkers have critiqued his visualisation of an
overarching coercive society, but Durkhiem still lays out a road map for
us to follow and be clear in distinguishing individual acts from societal
acts. The subsequent methodologies and perspectives in sociology
attempted to privilege the agency of the individual. We have discussed
Giddens' work as an example of this approach. Another critique that
came strongly against positivism came from Gouldner, who felt that
positivism with i t s methodological coldness separates the knower from
the known and therefore he pleads for a reflexive sociology. Many in the
 Positivism
social sciences, especially i n social anthropology, have recommended and its Critique
reflexiveness. The issues of who represents whom has come under severe
debate not only in anthropology but also in the general debates in the
social sciences. With the post-modernist critique of unilinear theories
there is an increasing tendency to look for multi-vocality. The question
that can be asked in this context is what relevance do theories, which
support generalising tendencies, have in the globalising world?

Further ~ e a d i n ~
Allan Kenneth 2005, Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory, Seeing
the Social World, Sage Publications (Pine Ford Press): New York.
(The book uses ideas of modernity and post-modernity to help student
understand how the theoretical, historical perspectives apply to their
- own time period.)
Giddens, Anthony 1984. The constitution of Society, Outline of the Theory
of Structuralism, Polity Press: Cambridge (Chapter 1 on Elements of the
Theory of Structuration and.Chapter 6 on Structuration Theory, Empirical
Research and Social Critique)
 Religion And Society
Religious Communities In India
India is the birth place of four of the world's major religious traditions,
namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Throughout its history, religion has been an important
part of the country's culture. Religious diversity and religious tolerance are both established in the country
by law and custom. A vast majority of Indians associate themselves with religion.

According to the 2001 census, Hinduism accounted for 80.5% of the population of
India. Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%) and Sikhism(1.9%) are the other major religions followed by
the people of India. This diversity of religious belief existing in India today is a result of religions
assimilation and social integration brought to India by traders, travelers, immigrants, and even invaders and
conquerors.

Christianity is India's third-largest religion, with approximately 24 million followers,

constituting 2.3% of India's population. The works of scholars and Eastern Christian writings state that
Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who Kerala in 52 AD to spread the gospel
amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements. Although, the exact origins of Christianity in India remain unclear, it
is generally agreed upon that Christianity in India is almost as old as Christianity itself and spread in India
even before it spread to many predominantly Christian nations of Europe.

Today Christians are found all across India and in all walks of life, with major populations in
parts of South India, the Konkan Coast and the North-East. Indian Christians have contributed significantly
to and are well represented in various spheres of national life. Indian Christians also have one of the
highest literacy, work participation and sex ratio figures among the various religious communities in India.

Zoroastrianism and Judaism also have an ancient history in India and each has several
thousand Indian adherents. India has the largest population of people adhering to Zoroastrianism and Bahá'í
Faith anywhere in the world. Many other world religions also have a relationship with Indian spirituality, like
the Baha'i faith which recognizes Lord Buddha and Lord Krishna as manifestations of God.

The Muslim population in India is the third largest in the world. The shrines of some of the
most famous saints of Sufism like Moinuddin Chishti and Nizamuddin Auliya are in India and attract visitors
from all over the world. India is also home to some of the most famous monuments of Islamic architecture
like the Taj Mahal and the Qutb Minar. Civil matters related to the community are dealt with by the
Muslim Personal Law, and constitutional amendments in 1985 established its primacy in family matters.
 Islam is the second-most practiced religion in the Republic of India after Hinduism, with more
than 13.4% of the country's population (over 138 million as per 2001 census). Matters of jurisdiction
involving Muslims in India related to marriage, inheritance and wakf properties are governed by the Muslim
Personal Law,[7] and the courts have ruled that Sharia or Muslim law, holds precedence for Muslims over
Indian civil law in such matters

Citizens of India are generally tolerant of each other's religions and retain a secular outlook,
although inter-religious marriage is not widely practiced. Inter-community clashes have found little support
in the social mainstream, and it is generally perceived that the causes of religious conflicts are political
rather than ideological in nature.

Indian religions is a classification for religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent;
namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism andSikhism.[1] These religions are also classified as Eastern religions.
Although Indian religions are connected through the history of India, they constitute a wide range of
religious communities and Indian religions are not confined to the Indian subcontinent.

The documented history of Indian religions begins with historical Vedic religion, the religious
practices of the early Indo-Aryans, which were collected and later redacted into the Vedas. These texts are
the central texts of Hinduism. The period of the composition, redaction and commentary of these texts is
known as the Vedic period, which lasted from roughly 1500 to 500 BCE.

The late Vedic period (9th to 6th centuries BCE) marks the beginning of the Upanisadic
or Vedantic period. This period heralded the beginning of much of what became classical Hinduism, with the
composition of the Upanishads, later the Sanskrit epics, still later followed by the Puranas.

Jainism was established by a lineage of 24 enlightened beings culminating with Parsva (9th
century BCE) and Mahavira (6th century BCE). Buddhism was historically founded by Siddhartha Gautama,
a Kshatriya prince-turned-ascetic, and was spread beyond India through missionaries. It later experienced
a decline in India, but survived in Nepal and Sri Lanka, and remains more widespread in Southeast and East
Asia.

Sikhism was founded in the 15th century on the teachings of Guru Nanak and the nine
successive Sikh Gurus in Northern India.The vast majority of its adherents originate in the Punjab region.
 Problems Of Religious Minorities

Today, India is a unique example of plural society transforming itself into a modern nation
state. The very plural nature of society is the root cause of the problem of identity and allegiance of
various minorities to the modern nation state.

There are different kinds of minorities in India i.e. religious minorities, linguistic minorities,
ethnic (tribe) minorities. Is India a multicultural society with religious diversity non-existent in any one
nation. Minorities are always under the fear of loss of their identity therefore they go for blockade. They
are also afraid of Cosmopolitan culture for example Delhi Punjabi living in Punjabi Bagh. In India Muslims and
Christians are in minority as compared to Hindus. But the relationship of Hindus and Muslims are more
stressful as compared to relationship between Hindus and Christians.

Gandhiji said that “the rise of Hindu fundamentalism is evolving into reactionary forces
because Christian missionaries were engaged in conversion in tribal areas”. People got converted into
Christianity but were unable to abandon Hinduism completely e.g. elements of hierarchical relationship
among people belonging to different caste is still prevalent within them. In Kerala Christianity is vertically
segmentised into three hierarchical groups i.e. Syrian Christians, Latin Christians, New Christians
(untouchables). Thus caste like hierarchy is followed and Christianity was getting Indianised unlike West.

In North East majority of the people are Christians. Tribes are segmented on the basis of
ethnic identity which has resulted into conflict between them. Missionaries introduced modern values and
ideology and introduced modern education which unified them. E.g. Mizoram is known today for very high
literacy rate not because of state program but because of missionaries effort.

Logically minorities are as much the citizens of India as the majority are. To tackle the
problem of various minorities, while formulating the Constitution of India, article 25 - 28 were included to
ensure due respect and status to each religious group. Thereby not compromising with the civil rights of
the people.

The biggest threat to Christian minority in India is the rise of Right-Wing fundamentalism
that challenges to the civil rights, democratic rights of the citizens of the country. Christians are becoming
victims of organised terror, standing alienated in their own homeland . The rise of fundamentalism is
responsible for the vertical division of nation on the basis of religion affecting the cultural essence of Hindu
society that was best known for tolerance and cultural synthesis.
The problems of Muslims In India

Muslims in India do have a population of hundred and 50 million i.e. around 12% of the total
population of the country. Some of the educated Muslims are joining the mainstream of India by securing
position in Administration, judiciary and other government services. But a majority of the highly educated
Muslims are tending to migrate to the Western countries. This fact has deprived the Muslim masses of the
leadership of their educated brethren. In particular, there is no worthwhile leadership for Muslims of India.
What is known as the middle class community among the Muslim is a very small entity. This, in a way,
reflects on the general social economic situation of Muslims community. The poor people among the Muslims
are more in number, and an important section of them has been hit by the unintended de-industrialisation
of India during the plan period. The next most important occupation after agriculture and rural India
happens to be weaving and handlooms, and among the weavers employed in handloom industry Muslims
constitute a majority segment. But the government policy of supplying cheap cloth, known as ‘controlled
cloth’ for the general good of the people badly hit the handloom industry. Besides, the introduction of
synthetic yarn also adversely affected industry. In other words, the Muslim segment which made its
livelihood from handloom industry was uprooted because of the government's unintended policy of cheap
cloth for mass consumption.

It is the general poverty of the majority of Muslims that is exploited by the vested Muslim
interest, that is, the priestly community or the ‘Mullas’. Apart from this disturbing situation, there is
some amount of foreign interference, in particular that of Pakistan by various means. These two factors to
a great extent generate communal disturbances in India. Underlying the communal disturbances between
Hindus and Muslims is the third truth that a minority community anyway tends to be very touchy, and it
also happens to be the first community to react whenever any suspicion is aroused. The psychology of the
minority too cannot be helped. John Stuart Mill has rightly said that "the worst of the tyrannies is
tyranny of the majority". This remark does not imply that majority community deliberately attempts to
humiliate the minorities, but the general behavioural pattern of the majority community is such that it
could be always asphyxiating to the minorities, as borne out by the simple reaction of a small groups of
girls in colleges amidst majority of boys. In other words, the sensitive minority complex is a natural
phenomena.

Apart from these specific factors contributing to the tensions between the two communities, there are
various other factors that are at the root of communal conflicts, which are:

 Role of politicians.
 Anti-social elements in society.
 Bitter memories of the past.
 The very fact, that communal disturbances occur very often in the northern belt, reveals
that the memories of the partition days still linger in the minds of the people. Apart from this, Hindu
revivalist organisations are also active in northern belt of India.This is borne out by the fact that communal
disturbances occur as per the calendar, revealing that deep-rooted suspicions and bitter memories of
yesterday have not been forgotten and forgiven as yet. However, if such clashes are not controlled in time,
the state is to be blamed for it. Absence of adequate intelligence reports incapacitates administration to
take the needed preventive measures. Worse follows when communal flareups break out. Subjected to
various political pressures as well as owing to the fear of being dubbed communal, the parties tend to deal
with a given situation in a mild mannered, and thereby let the communal trouble go out of control. It has
always been proved that every such disturbance must be dealt with very firmly on its very early stage.

In brief, the communal tensions of today are partly caused by deep-rooted reasons, and partly
because of secondary reasons. However, it should not be construed that communal harmony between Hindus
and Muslims is totally absent or it has completely broken down. In everyday life there is not much of a
difference between the lifestyles of Muslims and Hindus. In areas such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra the Muslim population speak the same language. The lifestyles too,
including the dietary habits, happen to be similar. And, as we all know, some of the Jati practices are
prevalent among Muslims also. Generally, the lifestyle of Muslims, whether they be in the Deccan and
southern India or in northern India are the same as that of the majority group, and ordinarily they lead
normal lives without fear. Communal troubles are occasional events and they are not always of any serious
magnitude.

Muslims in India are about 19 the national population. Only Indonesia and Pakistan among
modern nations have more Muslim citizens. Muslims of India have contributed to both Islam and Indian
civilisation. However, indeed, it is also a stark reality that even Muslim villagers in India believe that their
social organisation is different from that of Hindus. Some studies point out that orthodox Muslims resent
the word caste being used for their religious group. Notwithstanding that, though their doctrine asserts
that all Muslims are equal, their actual social practices defy it. Muslim in all regions of India class
themselves into endogamous and heriditory groups which are ranked in relation to each other. Hereditary
occupations are usually attributed to each group, because members participate in Jajmani relationship with
families of other jatis in the locality. Where Muslim untouchables exist, they are treated alike both Hindus
and Muslims. Theoretically, Islam is against any kind of caste system. But since most of the converts were
Hindus, caste system and its interactive patterns have survived.

According to Sachar Committee Report, Muslims have very few representation in police,
Administration and other government jobs in proportion to their population when compared to other
communities. Only 4% of Muslim children complete class X and 2% complete class XII whereas only 1.2% are
able to complete their graduation, apart from this women graduates are less than 1% among Muslim
population. According to this report on an average 249 communal riots take place in India every year and
in these communal riots 80% of the Muslims lose their property and at times their life.

Major problems of Muslim in India advocates Deepak Mehta is minority psychosis. Though
Muslims are the majority among all minorities in India but still there is a compartmentalization between
Hindu and Muslims in terms of territory, dress and occupation. In a study of Dharavi (a slum in Mumbai),
he points out that even little provocation from one side leads to acceleration of communal passion from
the other side giving way to regular communal conflicts.

Educational problems of Muslim can be attributed to multiple factors. Firstly school

curriculum is either in Hindi or in English and very little space is offered in a school curriculum to explain
Islamic ideas, values, rituals and way of life therefore Muslim children find out school text as non-
interesting and other’s cultural product.

According to Islamic culture co-education system is not encouraged, however, nowhere in the
country there are special schools for the education of Muslim girls.

Many state governments have encouraged Madarsa, paying little attention to secularization of
education of the Muslims as a result, most of the Muslims go for religious-based education paying very
little attention to rational knowledge which leads to huge gap between Hindus and Muslims in terms of
education, income, occupation and possibility of social mobility.

Muslims are very often treated as vote banks by different political parties therefore instead
of introducing public policies that can bring Muslims into mainstream education and economic frontier
different governments are engaging into minority appeasing politics.

Zoya Hasan writes that, on one hand the orthodox religion and its leader and on the other
hand state are instrumental for the perpetuation of backwardness of Muslim women in India. She finds out
that Uniform Civil Code which could have really empowered Muslim women, has been out rightly rejected by
vested interest who falsely propagate that this is a policy of Hindu agenda imposed upon Muslim minority.
But in reality Uniform Civil Code is a national agenda for the empowerment of women.

Randhir Singh writes that, the worst fear of Muslim minority in India is the rise of
“Islamophobia” that conceptualises that the roots of terrorism, and communal violence are the Muslims.
The concept of Islamophobia glorified by right-wing fundamentalists is leading to isolation of Muslims from
their own homeland, vertically dividing the society on the basis of religion which is leading to religious
militantism questioning to the secular credentials of India.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Research Methods and Analysis

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
There has been widespread debate in recent years within many of the social sciences regarding the relative
merits of quantitative and qualitative strategies for research. The positions taken by individual researchers vary considerably,
from those who see the two strategies as entirely separate and based on alternative views of the world, to those who are happy
to mix these strategies within their research projects. For example, Bryman (1988) argued for a `best of both worlds' approach
and suggested that qualitative and quantitative approaches should be combined. Hughes (1997), nevertheless, warns that such
technicist solutions underestimate the politics of legitimacy that are associated with choice of methods. In particular,
quantitative approaches have been seen as more scientific and `objective'.

Quantitative research consists of those studies in which the data concerned can be analysed in terms of
numbers. Research can also be qualitative, that is, it can describe events, persons and so forth scientifically without the use of
numerical data ... Quantitative research is based more directly on its original plans and its results are more readily analysed and
interpreted. Qualitative research is more open and responsive to its subject. Both types of research are valid and useful. They
are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a single investigation to use both methods.

Qualitative research is harder, more stressful and more time-consuming than other types. Quantitative research
is, as the term suggests, concerned with the collection and analysis of data in numeric form. It tends to emphasize relatively
large-scale and representative sets of data, and is often, falsely in our view, presented or perceived as being about the gathering
of `facts'. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned with collecting and analysing information in as many forms,
chiefly non-numeric, as possible. It tends to focus on exploring, in as much detail as possible, smaller numbers of instances or
examples which are seen as being interesting or illuminating, and aims to achieve depth rather than breadth.

Research is a systematic investigation to find answers to a problem. Research in professional social science
areas, like research in other subjects, has generally followed the traditional objective scientific method. Since the 1960s,
however, a strong move towards a more qualitative, naturalistic and subjective approach has left social science research divided
between two competing methods: the scientific empirical tradition, and the naturalistic phenomenological mode. In the
scientific method, quantitative research methods are employed in an attempt to establish general laws or principles. Such a
scientific approach is often termed nomothetic (founded upon or derived from law) and assumes social reality is objective and
external to the individual. The naturalistic approach to research emphasises the importance of the subjective experience of
individuals, with a focus on qualitative analysis. Social reality is regarded as a creation of individual consciousness, with
meaning and the evaluation of events seen as a personal and subjective construction. Such a focus on the individual case rather
than general law-making is termed an ideographic approach.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

KEY CHARACTERISTICS

CONTROL: This is the most important element because it enables the scientist to identify the causes of his or her
observations. Experiments are conducted in an attempt to answer certain questions. They represent attempts to identify why
something happens, what causes some event, or under what conditions an event does occur. Control is necessary in order to
provide unambiguous answers to such questions. To answer questions in education and social science we have to eliminate the
simultaneous influence of many variables to isolate the cause of an effect. Controlled inquiry is absolutely essential to this
because without it the cause of an effect could not be isolated.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: This means that terms must be defined by the steps or operations used to measure them.
Such a procedure is necessary to eliminate any confusion in meaning and communication. Consider the statement `Anxiety
causes students to score poorly in tests'. One might ask, `What is meant by anxiety?' Stating that anxiety refers to being tense or
some other such term only adds to the confusion. However, stating that anxiety refers to a score over a criterion level on an
anxiety scale enables others to realise what you mean by anxiety. Stating an operational definition forces one to identify the
empirical referents, or terms. In this manner, ambiguity is minimised. Again, introversion may be defined as a score on a
particular personality scale, hunger as so many hours since last fed, and social class as defined by occupation.

REPLICATION: To be replicable, the data obtained in an experiment must be reliable; that is, the same result must be found
if the study is repeated. If observations are not repeatable, our descriptions and explanations are thought to be unreliable.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING: The systematic creation of a hypothesis and subjecting it to an empirical test.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

STRENGTHS

· Precision - through quantitative and reliable measurement

· Control - through sampling and design

· Ability to produce causality statements, through the use of controlled experiments

· Statistical techniques allow for sophisticated analyses

· Replicable

LIMITATIONS

· Because of the complexity of human experience it is difficult to rule out or control all the variables;

· Because of human agency people do not all respond in the same ways as inert matter in the physical sciences;

· Its mechanistic ethos tends to exclude notions of freedom, choice and moral responsibility;

· Quantification can become an end in itself.

· It fails to take account of people's unique ability to interpret their experiences, construct their own meanings and act on these.

· It leads to the assumption that facts are true and the same for all people all of the time.

· Quantitative research often produces banal and trivial findings of little consequence due to the restriction on and the
controlling of variables.

· It is not totally objective because the researcher is subjectively involved in the very choice of a problem as worthy of
investigation and in the interpretation of the results.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

KEY CHARACTERISTICS

· Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself
in the setting.

· The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.

· Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other
actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their
lives.

· Qualitative researchers attend to the experience as a whole, not as separate variables. The aim of qualitative research is to
understand experience as unified.

· Qualitative methods are appropriate to the above statements. There is no one general method.

· For many qualitative researchers, the process entails appraisal about what was studied.

Ely et al add the following from Sherman and Webb (1988) to their definition:

Qualitative implies a direct concern with experience as it is `lived' or `felt' or `undergone' ... Qualitative research, then, has the
aim of understanding experience as nearly as possible as its participants feel it or live it.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

LIMITATIONS

· The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and its
origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards of reliability and validity.

· Contexts, situations, events, conditions and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent nor can generalisations be made to
a wider context than the one studied with any confidence.

· The time required for data collection, analysis and interpretation is lengthy.

· Researcher's presence has a profound effect on the subjects of study.

· Issues of anonymity and confidentiality present problems when selecting findings.

· The viewpoints of both researcher and participants have to be identified and elucidated because of issues of bias.

STRENGTHS

· Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider's view of the field. This allows the researcher to find
issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic enquiries.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

· Qualitative descriptions can play the important role of suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects and dynamic
processes.

· Because statistics are not used, but rather qualitative research uses a more descriptive, narrative style, this research might be
of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports in order to examine forms of knowledge
that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

· Qualitative research adds flesh and blood to social analysis.

Techniques of data collection

Basic requirements for scientific data are that it should be reliable and impartial. In Sociology these conditions
are hard to meet. Yet numerous methods are used to minimize errors in data. Some of the commonly used sources in collecting
data are:

 Existing materials including the official statistical record and historical and contemporary documents.
 Social surveys through questionnaire and schedules
 Interviewing
 Observation- Participants and non-participant

Statistical Sources
Government statistics particularly census or statistics produced by large industrial or commercial firms, trade
unions or other organizations provide one important account of data which sociologist can use in their analysis. An outstanding
example of the imaginative use of official statistics in the positivist tradition is the study of suicide made by the famous French
sociologist Emile Durkheim in the 19th century. However official statistics are the kind of data that are not collected by
sociologists themselves and so there problems while analyzing the data.

Historical documents
Records and accounts of qualitative kind for example relating to belief, values, social relationship or social
behavior may also be contemporary or may refer to earlier periods. There are several difficulties immediately present
themselves in the use of records from the past. Few chroniclers of social relation and social action record observations in the
systematic way in which the sociologists are interested. There are often intriguing and sympathetic records but the information
that is vital to the sociologist is often missing.

Contemporary Records
Contemporary records relating to social relationship and social behavior are seldom used as the sole source of
information and sociological research. They are usually one source of a particular account or achievement.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Social Survey

The basic procedure in survey is that people are asked a number of questions on that aspect of behavior which
the sociologist is interested in. A number of people carefully selected so that their representation of their population being
studied are asked to answer exactly the same question so that the replies to different categories of respondents may be
examined for differences. One type of survey relies on contacting the respondents by letter and asking them to complete the
questionnaire themselves before returning it. These are called Mail questionnaires. Sometimes questionnaires are not
completed by individuals separately but by people in a group under the direct supervision of the research worker. A variation of
the procedure can be that a trained interviewer asks the questions and records the responses on a schedule from each
respondent.

These alternate procedures have different advantages and disadvantages. Mail questionnaires are relatively cheap and can be
used to contact respondents who are scattered over a wide area. But at the same time the proportion of people who return
questionnaires sent through post is usually rather small. The questions asked in main questionnaires have also to be
very carefully worded in order to avoid ambiguity since the respondents cannot ask to have questions clarified for them. Using
groups to complete questionnaires means that the return rate is good and that information is assembled quickly and fairly.
Administrating the interview schedules to the respondents individually is probably the most reliable method. Several trained
interviewers may be employed to contact specific individuals. The questionnaires and schedules can consist of both close-
ended and open-ended questions. Also a special attention needs to be paid to ensure that the questionnaires are filled in logical
order.

Where aptitude questions are included great care must be exercised to ensure the proper words are used. In case of schedules
emphasis and interactions may also be standardized between different individuals and from respondents to respondents. Finally
proper sampling techniques must be used to ensure that the sample under study represents the universe of study. In order to
enhance the reliability of data collected through questionnaires and schedules, these questionnaires and schedules must be
pretested through pilot studies.

Interviewing
Social surveys may depend either on questionnaires that are self-administered or on schedules completed by
trained research workers personally interviewing then is not a method of data collection distinct from social surveying but
rather a technique which may vary from the brief formal contact as when the interviewer is working for the firms public
opinion consultants or a market research organization and simply asks a housewife a few highly specific questions on limited
range of topics to a long interview in which the research worker allows the respondents to develop points at leisure and take up
others as he chooses.

The brief formal interview in which the working of the questions and the order in which they are asked is fixed
is called structured interview while the freer discursive interview is called unstructured interview. The object of using
structured interview is to standardize the interview as much as possible and thus to reduce the effect that the interviewer's
personal approach or biases may have upon the result and even when structured interviews are used, proper training can do a
lot to ensure further the reliability and validity of research. The personality of the interviewer and the social characteristics
that the respondents attribute to him can be having influence on the result. The effort of interviewer's bias can be estimated by
comparing one interviewer's result with other. The problem of interviewer's bias in an unstructured interview is much greater.
Here the interviewer is left to his common devices as far as the way he approaches a respondent is concerned. There is no fixed
list of questions to work through. Instead the interviewer may work from a guide that will remind him of the topics he wishes
to cover.

The training of the interviewer is crucial here not simply training in the social skills of keeping the
conversation going on a topic that the respondent may not be very interested in but also in acquiring sensitivity to those things
his respondents tells him which are specially relevant to the theoretical topics he is pursuing. This means that unstructured
interviews can be carried out by people trained in sociological theory. They are then able to size upon stray comments made by
the respondents which can be developed and lead on to important theoretical insight.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Observation: Participant and non participant

The rationale behind the use of observation in sociological research is that the sociologist should become party
to a set of social actions sufficiently able to be able to assess directly the social relationship involved. The degree of
involvement may vary considerable from being merely a watcher on the sidelines to be deeply involved in and being a part of
what is going on. The former type of observation techniques are called non-participant while the latter is called participant
observation. Sometimes one way observations screen have been used to watch groups in actions that they are unaware that they
are being watched and the observer cannot affect their actions by his presence. The sociologist is visibly present and is a part of
the situation either as a sociologist or in another guise. Where the sociologist is merely an observer it is usually assumed that he
knows enough about what the actors are doing to be able to understand their behaviour.

Any sociological observer has then to some extent be a participant observer he must at least share sufficient cultural
background with the actors to be able to construe their behavior meaningfully but the degree of participation and of sharing of
meaning may vary considerably. Examples of such studies are Nel Anderson's study of Hobo-Indians and William White study
of Street Corner Society.

Sampling

For practical and cost reasons, it is often impossible to collect information about the entire population of
people or things in which social researchers are interested. In these cases, a sample of the total is selected for study. Most
statistical studies are based on samples and not on complete enumerations of all the relevant data. The main criteria when
sampling are to ensure that a sample provides a faithful representation of the totality from which it is selected, and to know as
precisely as possible the probability that a sample is reliable in this way. Randomization meets these criteria, because it protects
against bias in the selection process and also provides a basis on which to apply statistical distribution theory that allows an
estimate to be made of the probability that conclusions drawn from the sample are correct. A statistical sample is a miniature
picture or cross-section of the entire group or aggregate from which the sample is taken. The entire group from which a sample
is chosen is known as the population, universe or supply.

Simple random sampling

The basic type of random sample is known as a simple random sample, one in which each person or item has
an equal chance of being chosen. Often a population contains various distinct groups or strata that differ on the attribute that is
being researched.

Stratified random sampling

Stratified random sampling involves sampling of each stratum separately. This increases precision, or reduces
time, effort and cost of allowing smaller sample sizes for a given level of precision. For example, poverty is known to be most
common among the elderly, the unemployed and single parent families, so research on the effect of poverty might will sample
separately each of these three strata as part of a survey of poverty in the population as a whole which would permit the total
sample size to be reduced because the investigator would know that the groups most affected by poverty were guaranteed
inclusion.

Cluster sampling

Cluster sampling is sometimes used when the population naturally congregates into clusters. For example,
managers are clustered in organizations, so a sample of managers could be obtained by taking a random sample of
organizations and investigating the managers in each of these. Interviewing or observing managers on this basis would be
cheaper and easier than using a simple random sample of managers scattered across all organizations in the country. This is
usually less precise than a simple random sample of the same size, but in practice the reduction in cost per element more than
compensated for the decrease in precision.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Multi-stage sampling

Sampling may be done as one process or in stages, known as multi-stage sampling .Multi-stage designs are
common when populations are widely dispersed. Thus a survey of business managers might proceed by selecting a sample of
corporations as first stage units, perhaps choosing these corporations with a probability proportionate to their size, and then
selecting a sample of managers within these corporations at the second stage. Alternatively, a sample of individual factories or
office buildings within each corporation could be chosen as the second stage units, followed by sample of managers in each of
these as a third stage. Stratification can also be used in the design, if for example occupational sub-groups are known to differ
from each other, by selecting state such as personnel, production, and finance management and sampling within each of these.
For sampling to be representative, one needs a complete and accurate list of the first stage units that make up the relevant
population, a basic requirement that is not always easily met. This forms the sampling frame. Selection from the frame is best
done by numbering the items and using a table of random numbers to identify which items form the sample, though a quasi-
random method of simply taking every item from the list is often appropriate. The reliability of a sample taken from a
population can be assessed by the spread of the sampling distribution, measured by the standard deviation of this distribution,
called the standard error. As a general rule, the larger is the size of the sample the smaller the standard error.

Area sampling

In sampling of this kind small areas are designated as sampling units and the households interviewed include
all or a specified fraction of those found in a canvass of these designated small areas. The basic sampling units or segments
chosen may be relatively large or relatively small depending on such factors as the type of area being studied, population
distribution, the availability of suitable maps and other information and the nature and desired accuracy of the data being
collected.

Non-probability sampling design

It is based on the assumption that proportionately all combinations of the items to be studied will be present in
the sample. But there is no assurance that every such element has a chance of being included. There are different types of non-
probability sampling like:

Purposive Samples: Its main aim is to choose the cases that are of special interest. The selection of elements proceeds under
the assumption that errors of judgement in the selection written to counterbalance each other. The researcher selects a sample
group which is atypical of population. This subgroup represents the population. Observation on these strata are made and the
findings are generalised for the whole population. It is difficult to compute sampling errors and biases. Strong assumptions
must be made about the population in the case of judgement samples than in probability sampling or stop these cannot be used
for statistical testing of hypotheses in probability sampling.

Quota Sampling: In this method, a sample that is a replica of the population in respect of which one wishes to generalise is
selected. It by and large force of the insured is that the diverse elements in the population are included in a sample and that
these elements are taken account of in proportions in which the octane in the population. One of the most commonly used
methods of sampling in marketing research is an election polls is the method of quota sampling. The technique will vary from
one researcher to another, but in general the pattern is to leave considerable freedom of choice to the interviewer with the
restriction that certain characteristics of the respondents be representative of the area.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Hypothesis

Facts are dependent upon a theoretical framework for their meaning. They are also statements of relationships
between concepts. Theory can give direction to the search for facts. A hypothesis states what we are looking for. When facts
are assembled, ordered and seen in a relationship they constitute a theory. The theory is not speculation but is built upon fact.
Now the various facts in a theory may be logically analyzed and relationships other than those stated in the theory can be
deduced. At this point there is no knowledge as to whether such deductions are correct. The formulation of the deduction
however constitutes a hypothesis; if verified it becomes part of a future theoretical construction. The relation between the
hypothesis and theory is very close indeed. A theory states a logical relationship between facts. From this theory other
propositions can be deduced that should be true, if the first relationship holds. These deduced propositions are hypotheses.

A hypothesis looks forward. It is a proposition which can be put to a test to determine its validity. It may seem
contrary to or in accord with common sense. It may prove to be correct or incorrect. Bn any event however, it leads to an
empirical test. Whatever the outcome, the hypothesis is a question put in such a way that an answer of some kind can be
forthcoming. It is an example of the organized skepticism of science. The refusal to accept any statement without empirical
verification. Every worthwhile theory then permits the formulation of additional hypotheses. These when tested are either
proved or disapproved and in turn constitute further tests of the original theory.

Design of Proof: Testing the Hypothesis

The function of the hypothesis is to state a specific relationship between phenomena in such a way that this
relationship can be empirically tested. The basic method of this demonstration is to design the research so that logic will
require the acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis on the basis of resulting data.

The basic designs of logical proof were formulated by John Stuart Mill and still remain the foundation of experimental
procedure although many changes have been made. His analysis provides two methods. The first of these is called the method
of agreement. When stated positively this holds that when two or more cases of a given phenomenon have one and only one
condition in common then that condition may be regarded as the cause or effect of the phenomenon. The classical experimental
design is a development from both the positive and negative canons and attempts to avoid the weaknesses of both of them. In
the simplified form Mill called it the method of difference. To develop the classical design of proof by the method of difference
it is necessary only to make two series of observations and situations.

Reliability and validity of data

Data is only useful if it actually measures what it claims to be measuring and, in this respect, the concept of
validity refers to the extent to which the data we collect gives a true measurement / description of "social reality" (what is
"really happening" in society).

Valid data will have a depth and level of detail that gives the researcher a wellrounded picture of whatever they
are studying.

Unemployment statistics: We can be reasonably sure the statistics are collected reliably, month-on-month, but
we need to know how accurate (or "valid") a picture of unemployment they represent. For example, if we wanted to compare
levels / rates of unemployment in our society between today and twenty years ago, could we use government statistics for this
purpose?

Although such statistics are collected reliably, definitions of "unemployment" have changed over time - and
since the definition has changed about 25 times over the past 15 years, such statistics are not valid for purposes of comparison
(we are not, in technical terms, "comparing like with like").

Additionally, since such statistics do not use a definition of "unemployment" that involves counting everyone
who wants to find a job (but can't) it's unlikely that they represent a true or valid picture of unemployment.

The concepts of reliability and validity go together in sociological research:

CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

• If data is reliable but not valid, it may have limited use. We can make general statements about the world, but such statements
may not actually apply to any one social group (such as the "unemployed").

• If data is valid, but not reliable, we may not be able to use it to make general statements about the world (for example, we
may be able to understand something about one group of unemployed people that doesn't necessarily apply to all unemployed
people).
 Rural And Agrarian Social Structure

The Idea Of Indian Village And Village Studies

Introduction:

Village occupies an important place in the social and cultural landscape of contemporary
India. Notwithstanding India’s significant industrialisation over the last five or six decades, and a
considerable increase in the urban population, a large majority of Indians continue to live in its more than
five lakh villages and remain dependent on agriculture, directly or indirectly. According to 2001 census,
rural India accounted for nearly 72% of India's total population. Similarly, though the share of agriculture
has come down to around one fourth of the total national income, nearly half of India's working population
is directly employed in the agricultural sector.

Apart from it being an important demographic and structural reality , characterising

contemporary Indian, village has also been an important ideological category; a category through which India
has often been imagined in modern times. The village has been seen as an ultimate signifier of the
authentic native value, a place where one could see or observe the real India and develop an understanding
of the way local people organise their social relationships and belief systems.

In Ramayana three words are used for village i.e. Gram, Nagar, Puri. When one talks about
village it is assumed that it is a place where Commoners live. In Kautilya’s Arthshastra it has been
mentioned that it is the duty of the King to ensure how new villages is to be created, how much tax
people should pay and the extent of their linkage with the social world. Therefore multiple number of
villages have emerged throughout the history of India.

When the Mughals came to India they made villages as the smallest administrative unit,
Mazumdars, Zamindari's were introduced in India. When British came to India there existed autonomous
and semi-autonomous villages controlling huge quarter of fertile and wasteland. Different commissions were
instituted from 1772 onwards to make the best use of village lands like Zamindari system, Ryotwari,
Mahalwari Syatem and taxes were collected through these units.British treated village as economic unit
whereas village in India has several other characteristics, a cultural unit (traditionally), political unit (in
modern and contemporary India).

Most of the British scholars were looking at Indian villages from colonial view thinking that
village communities are not subject to change, pessimistic therefore village communities are "Little
Republics", self-perpetuating in character, stereotype and self governed. They mentioned that the ruler of
India can keep on changing but these villages operated as independent unit without much concern for the
change of rule. Hence, to bring a big change in villages in India is not imaginable.

Gandhiji said that ‘India lives in villages’. He mentioned that one cannot imagine freedom movement in
India without the participation of village community and so he instituted Gram Sena. He believed that if
India lives in villages, developmental programmes should start from there only.

Marx and Gandhiji were coming together when they both reflect on village as Marx also
considered India as pre-developed economy because of primitive techniques employed, cooperative
landholdings etc. Village study emerged as a critique to Indology. As Indologists studied India from text
view and considered textual information and historical texts, they presented only a restricted picture by
believing that whatever has been written in these texts must be true and that it must have happened.

Village is a basic unit of social structure, through village we try to understand sociology of
India. When historian looks at village from economic point of view political scientist looks at it from the
criteria of functions of village headman, caste panchayats etc. Village is not just a structure, within a
village, it consists of multiple structures e.g. caste social structure, class social structure, power social
structure as observed by Andre Beteille. Different aspects of village social life has been an important
subject matter for sociologist to study village, its continuity and compared these village structures to find
out similarities and differences among them. These village studies greatly reflect the diversity present in
India.

When British came to India they never considered land as political entity like Mughals. The
British came to India for economic purpose, they studied Indian village communities in depth so as to have
a better understanding of India in order to economically exploit it and to formulate policies to safeguard
British interest in India. Colonial rule evolved on scientific lines. Early colonial scholars finds out that village
communities were geographically isolated from other adjoining village and that they are self-sufficient unit,
with no access to market and they have only tax liability to state hence ‘little republics’ concept of Indian
village emerged. They said that unity and self-sufficiency are the hallmark of Indian villages.

British could easily rule over India because people living in the grassroot were hardly
bothered who was ruling. They were concerned only about their land and indigenous right. British rule
hardly made any changes in village because firstly they annexed different states and asked the rulers to
sign treaties and did not interfered directly with the people. British transformed these kings into
Zamindars and imposed a fix quantum of tax. Indigenous rulers hardly did anything to improve the quality
 and development of land and huge amount of revenue was paid to British so there was no consideration
for the Village people even in times of drought.

MN Srinivas took a lead role in studying village in India. He stated that within village
multiple forms of life exist which cannot be studied from time bound mechanism, therefore to reach any
valid conclusion field study method is a must because through field study only one can study the dynamic
nature of Indian villages.

Village Studies In India

The rise of Indian sociology cannot be truly studied through Indological method. Its growth
and maturity cannot be understood without explaining the influence of village studies. Village study is not
an ideology and neither its a methodology rather it is an intellectual attempt to study Indian society
when it is evident to look into the vastness of its population, diversity of its culture, variability in
people's response to change.

It is too difficult to develop scientific understanding of India. Colonial rulers, administrators

were holding romantic opinion about village India indicating that village is the heart of India which is quite
static, self governed, self-sufficient, politically autonomous and culturally unique and linkage between which
village and larger society is purposive and specific. This imagination evolved the thesis of self-sufficient
character of village communities in India. These theories were rejected by MN Srinivas and AM Shah in
their famous article "Myth Of Self-Sufficiency" of village communities in India. Collecting empirical data
from different villages they indicated that:

 village communities are not self-sufficient because people belonging to one village were practising exogamy.
Thus marrying women belonging to other villages.
 The incidence of foreign trade is well-documented in Indian history indicating that exposure of village to
outside world. They further indicated that in traditional Indian village there was presence of specialised
market (cattle market, vegetable market, textile market) and people belonging to different villages were
visiting these market extending the network of economic relationships from one village to the larger
society.
 Villages had a strong political network with the outside world but British scholars failed to understand
caste councils, local council is which involve people belonging to different villages took part in decision-
making process. Hence conceptualising village as self-governing unit is a Colonial bias towards India.
 Starting from Marx to colonial scholars all hold the romantic view i.e. land bind the people
of India together. Empirical study indicates that there are many villages where land belonging to families
and village land located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the village. As a result man living in one
village was visiting another village to put his land under plough explaining the extension of network of
relationship from one village to another on regular basis.

They concluded by saying that British notice the presence of no permanent market in village
India. The further noticed that India's villages are not well connected through urban centres and most of
the disputes are resolved within the village than litigants coming through the purview of legal code. Thus
the colonial scholars jumped into conclusion that village communites are self-sufficient and self-governing
unit that they are potentially not.

Milton Singer and Mc Kim Marriott also offered a strong rejection of the idea village self-
sufficiency. In their study they found out that some villages doesn't have graveyard within them, one
fourth of the credits come from outside, barbers ,Brahmins from adjoining villages regularly come to offer
their service to the people of village therefore economic and social dependency of the village with other
adjoining villages were highly pronounced and so village self-sufficiency is an intellectual imagination and not
a matter of fact.

Marriott introduced the concepts like universalisation and parochialisation to explain the
cultural communication between village and larger society for example during green revolution peasant
political party emerged into the national level and its impact is not restricted to village level only.

SC Dubay conducted research on the impact of community development programme on

village. He indicated that in India local cultures move up to the larger society in order to become a part
of the greater tradition and that is known as ‘Process Of Universalisation’ for example the local festival
known as ‘Suniya’ initially started from a village but subsequently it went on to become the national
festival of Raksha Bandhan. Likewise all sectarian movements are initiated from the village but
subsequently received patronage and become part of great tradition. Hence dance, music, language,
literature and religion in India always move in a circular direction and so acceptance of the concept of self-
sufficiency will be an intellectual mistake.

Andre Beteille in his study of India's village - past and present indicate:
 colonialists failed to understand that village houses people and human beings by nature appreciate change,
rather than always going for a status quo. People in village India were responding to changes through cross
 cultural communication but these responses were slow and the impatient British scholars concluded that
village in India constitute closed communities.

 He asked a fundamental question indicating that many rulers came to India and introduce public policy
arbitrarily ,the people of village India accepted these policies for centuries together because of which
colonialism sustained in India. Had the people of India being allergic to change they would have thrown out
the British from their soil in few years than waiting for centuries. People of India go for slow change, not
because they are myopic but because of the fact that they apply their common sense and go for only
those changes that can be internalised by them for their well-being.

Thus in conclusion it can be said that British glorified village solidarity, autonomy, self-
sufficiency to pass on the liabilities to people of India to prove India as a white man's burden. Despite the
best attempt of colonial ruler if India refuses to change then it’s because of its absolute commitment to
principles of inclusiveness (economic, cultural, social). Empirical studies on village communities in India
rejecting to the idea explain how village self-sufficiency is a myth and village has always been integrated
with the larger society in different degrees.

MN Srinivas in his study of Rampura village finds out that the rise of secular domination of
caste as against the ritual domination of Brahmin. He finds out that Brahmins – Vokalingams relationship
is not complimentary, driven by ritualistic prescription of Jajmani relationship rather it is transactional
driven by interest. Andre Beteille in a study of Siripuram village finds out interrelationship among the
people of village are not just driven by caste but also driven by class and power.

Andre Beteille finds out interrelationship among the people mostly confined to their own
caste is slowly changing. As a result both caste and class are becoming indicators to frequency of
interrelationship among people. He considers marriage is driven by caste consideration but everyday
relationship is evolving as caste neutral.

MS Rao in a study of Yadavpur, finds out how economic affluence has given a self confidence
to Yadav's who now are active in politics and evolving into dominant caste as against traditional dominant
Jats. Likewise the dynamic nature of caste, inter-caste conflict, intra-caste conflict are analysed in the
writings of serveral scholars who point out at the constant adjustment that Indian villages are going to in
space and time.

All the above mentioned studies indicated traditional class hierarchy is crumbling. Caste and
class identity are influencing to interpersonal relationship among people in village India.
Agrarian Social Structure – Evolution Of Land Tenure System ,
Land Reforms
Scarlett Epstein looks into the impact of irrigation project, green revolution in case of two
villages of South Karnataka where she finds out that agricultural modernity has established a strong linkage
between caste and landholding. Wraditional dominant caste has now evolved into the upper caste.

Kathleen Gaugh in a study of Kumbapetta village finds out that in rural village big
bourgeois, rich farmers, petty bourgeois, semi-proletariats, pure–proletariats have evolved. She finds out
that agrarian modernity has consolidated class division into rural India.

Daniel Thorner finds out a strong linkage between caste and class in agrarian India. He finds
out a correspondence between Malik (upper caste), Kisan (middle class),Mazdoor (lower caste). He
considers green revolution, land reforms did not benefit rural poor therefore there is capitalist agricultural
development taking place in socialist India.

Farmers in India went through multiple exploitation ,they lost their control over land, their
ignorance and lack of knowledge catalysed the process of exploitation. Poverty in India is a result of colonial
rule. This poverty is the foundation of Indian national movement and not the nationalism.

Colonial land tenure system can be divided into two types:

1) Zamindari system, Mahalwari

2) Ryotwari system.

Ryotwari system was applicable to South India and West India. The essence of the system
was that land owner was tilling the land on the basis of hereditary. Under this system British respected
the hereditary ownership of the land. But officially it was under British control. Land was sold/auctioned
to other people in order to ensure rent.

There were frequent famines and drought. Hence the holders of the land borrowed money
from the moneylenders in order to ensure payment of taxes. This prosses went on for 3 to 4 years after
which the accumulation of huge interest forced many Ryots to become landless for their lack of capacity
to pay taxes. When these lands were auctioned it was purchased by the moneylenders who appoints the
landless ryots to work for them. Hence this converted the poor farmers from owners of land to tillers of
land over which they had no right.
 Zamindari system was initially introduced in Bengal. Zamindari system became a kind of
investment for rich and affluent people. Due to better control over fieldworkers and tenants, sub
Zamindars emerged under zamindars which further led to the emergence of sub sub zamindars, sub sub sub
zamindars. The Zamindar at the lower most position took into consideration the interests and needs of all
the zamindars above him and on the basis of that imposed tax at the grassroot level. People who worked
on the fields lacked other alternate skills who cannot go for alternative occupation which forced them to
work under disadvantaged condition. Different kinds of permutation and combination were taking place
under Zamindari system.

Land improvement system was never introduced in India and this led to twin form
exploitation which was experienced by petty farmers i.e. one by the state and the other by the
zamindars. To terrorise the poor farmers an efficient police system was created. This led to the real
owners of land being subjected to marginalisation leading to polarisation of Indian rural society into "haves"
and "have nots".

British further wanted to expand their economic interest in India which could only be
possible if they go for cash crop production for commercialisation and trade. From 1897 – 1947 population
increased by 38% whereas agricultural production increased by only 16% because agricultural land was put
to produce commercial cash crops which increased by 58% and subsistence production decreased by 18%.

British flooded the Indian market with various kinds of durable items which further lead to the destruction
of crafts industry. Artisans were left unemployed as cheap British products were available in the Indian
market.This led them to rely on land and in this way provided additional cheap labour to the British who
exploited these artisans to the hilt to further increase the production of cash crops.

When these atrocities became absolute in nature people started revolting in different parts of the country
e.g. Moplah Rebellion, Kheda Satyagrah, Champaran movement, etc. By 1930 Kisan Sabha movement
started getting momentum which organised poor peasants to fight the private army of zamindars. The
farmers also supported the Indian National Congress which raise their cause and petitioned the British
government.

The impact of land tenure system was studied by sociologist from three perspective:

 Gandhian perspective,
 Nationalist perspective,
 Marxist perspective.

Gandhian sociologist's pointed out that land tenure system was attempted to develop a
relationship between landlords and peasants. They say all landlords are not anti-people and that they
should join hands with each other and give their extra land to landless peasant through state redistribution
system. They advocated that zamindars should voluntarily come up and give up their extra land to the
landless labourers.

Nationalist sociologist focus upon how state has the primary responsibility to introduce land
tenure system and gratify the needs of larger people. State should take up the responsibility of improving
agriculture through various measures i.e. providing cheap loans, machinery, educating farmers etc.

Marxist scholar stand opposite to nationalist and Gandhian scholars. They say that land
tenure system was successful only in two states i.e. Kerala and West Bengal and that cooperative
movements were also successful only in these two areas and partially successful in some western states.
According to Marxist, a State should not be given the responsibility of reforming the land. State is the
root of all possible evils and people should go for self mobilisation. They should carry arms and go for
naxalite movement so as to eradicate absentee landlord system from India.

Implication Of Land Reform Systems

It has been found out through various surveys that there has not been much change in
landholding size of upper-class even after 20 years of implementation of land reform system. There is
strong connectivity between land and caste. Braditional dominant caste control over land has not been
dilutive under the influence of land reform systems. Looking at the failure of the land reform system it
can be considered that capitalist agriculture development is happening in socialist India.

Nuisance of “Benami Transfers” supported by State Administration has been depriving the
masses from actual ownership rights over the land. The rural landless poor is evolving into underclass and
since they are voiceless they cannot stand opposite to the hegemonistic domination of local landlords,
police, administration and legal courts. The class – caste Nexus is the primary source of inequality in rural
India which cannot be broken by policies introduced by state from time to time.

Bhalla and Chaddah in their study of the "Impact Of Green Revolution" in 20 villages of
Punjab indicate that neither land reform system nor green revolution ever improved the condition of
landless and poor farmers. They found out that benefits of green revolution is largely pocketed by rich
farmers who have control over seed cooperatives, credit cooperatives and irrigation cooperatives.

Agricultural development programme are making class inequality rule India highly prominent
and intensive. The sustainability of inequalities spelt out by RBI report of 1997 had indicated 10% of our
population is having control over 58% of total resources and the last 10% of rural population have control
over 0.1% of the total resources.
 These inequalities are becoming foundation to public protest in different forms, manifested
in terms of Maoist insurgency and naxalite movement. Therefore rural development programme should be
reoriented to cater to the needs of the people taking into consideration the questions like sustainability,
inclusiveness, participative and people centric policies to minimise the class inequality in rural India.

Social Consequences Of Land Reform System

In Bihar Bhomiars have emerged as the dominant class and subsequently extracted maximum benefits from
land reform system. In Haryana and Punjab land reform system led to implementation of green revolution
which subsequently gave rise to highly dominant caste i.e. Jats.

Because of land reform system and subsequently through the implementation of green revolution upper
caste have become dominant and have flourished which has polarised the quantum of inequality even
further leading to resentment among various sections who have been left out in the process of
development in every sphere of life.
 Rural And Agrarian Transformation In India

Green Revolution And Social Change

The introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds after 1965 and the increased use
of fertilizers and irrigation are known collectively as the Green Revolution, which provided the increase in
production needed to make India self-sufficient in food grains, thus improving agriculture in India. It was an
interventionist measures taken by state to introduce economic changes. Green revolution had a large
impact on social, ethnic and political life of people.

Green revolution was introduced in two phases i.e. Punjab, Haryana and Western UP in the
first phase and southern India, Western India in the second phase. If we look into western pocket of India
its impact is different from that of Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh. Integrating all the facts
we can conclude that it changed economic and social set up of Indian society.

From 1960s – 1970, due to drought in major parts of the world it was presumed that
millions of people will die in Asian and African countries. Norman Borlaug was invited to India by the
adviser to the Indian minister of agriculture M. S. Swaminathan to show a way out so as to avert large-
scale famine which could have killed millions of people. Research was undertaken by Norman Borlough
wherein he developed a drought resistant seed more suitable to Indian conditions. He came up with wonder
wheat that was first tried in Mexico, which increased the production 200 times in Punjab, Haryana and
West Bengal.

The Green Revolution led to large-scale production of wheat grains and India's accomplishment
in agriculture became unbeatable. In 1970s different sociologist started studying the impact of green
revolution. And in 1985 they got published data on green revolution.

To make green revolution complete there was introduction of different kinds of cooperative
system e.g. seed cooperatives, rural credit cooperatives, irrigation cooperatives, fertiliser cooperatives etc.
National seed Corporation of India provided seeds at cheaper price to different seed cooperatives. But due
to large number of members of seed cooperatives belonging to upper class/rich farmers, all the benefits
were pocketed by them rather than getting equitably distributed.

In the same way the objective the seed cooperatives, initiated by the villagers with the
consensus to get benefit provided by the state, but due to entire co-operatives being controlled by
families who owned more than 80% of the land, they pocketed all the benefits and small farmers were
kept empty-handed. Thus by using new seeds big farmers got maximum return whereas the poor farmers
had to go on with old seeds which deteriorated their economic and social condition further.
 In the same way the rural credit cooperative did not benefit the poor farmers. Therefore we
can find out that capitalism is becoming much more intensive and institutionalised, cooperatives which were
created for the society were catering to the class interest.

It was found out that in Karnataka green revolution has established a strong nexus between
caste, class and power. It is found out that out of 20 blocks which were surveyed in 18 blocks there was
violation of official norms. The lift irrigation were located at the centre of the land belonging to rich
farmers who used constructed obstruction which minimised the flow of land to the area situated higher
this ultimately led to declining net productivity, pushing poor farmers into distress sale. Thus creating this
artificial problem the big landholders consolidate their landholding, multiplied their family income and then
encroaching into all cooperatives hijacked all the benefits endorsed by the state meant for the people at
large. This ultimately gave rise to a situation where dominant caste evolved into dominant class and
controller of power as well.

Credit cooperatives are engaging financial in mischief, rampant corruption, manipulation that
has ruined many poor families in the countryside. In case of Punjab, the vested interest group
,moneylenders and the commercial farmers have used cooperatives for gratification of the self centric goals.
It has been found out that in 10 years time these cooperatives have offered loans to 6000 small and
marginal farmers out of which 20% have sold out their land to pay back the loans. Therefore cooperative
has become a form of capitalist venture, systematically engaged in the exploitation of the poor and
marginalised. Therefore green revolution in case of India has given rise to the intensification of capitalist
agriculture development in those societies where the state was committed to the ideology of socialism.

P Vardhan indicated that real poverty is always estimated not in terms of basic needs but
on the factors like economic sustainability to family, whether maximum profit is generated to invest in
education, trade and other employment generating activities, whether agriculture is generating employment
or disguised unemployment. These factors needs to be undertaken to fully understand the impact of green
revolution in case of India.

It is proclaimed by the government and economists that green revolution has increased
agricultural productivity by several folds and that green revolution has created jobs for millions of people.
Rejecting this view sociologist's point out that no doubt green revolution has increased productivity by
several folds and provided employment to millions of people, but it cannot be overlooked that it has
created a very big gap between rich and poor. The main objective of green revolution was not only to
increase food productivity but also to bring about social and economic development of people at the
grassroot (as green revolution was part of the overall strategy of rural development programme) . It can
be said that the objective of food productivity was achieved to a large extent but it has failed miserably
as far as a social and economic development of the poor is concerned and thus made rural poverty fragile.
 Bhalla and Chadda: conducted study on 200 villages of Punjab and Haryana and found out
that the difference in per acre return in case of big and small farmers is 200 times and so the income
gap between rich and poor is to the extent of 16 times.

Green revolution also led to massive distress migration of agricultural labour from eastern
Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to Punjab and Haryana. These migrant labourers are not skilled and so they have
no way out but to work on the rich farmers fields thereby leading to their exploitation.

Lakshmi Menon and Utsa Patnaik look into the gender impact of green revolution. When
families income goes beyond their consumption needs, it becomes status symbol and so people become
status conscious. Women are withdrawn from labour as a result economy dominated by men leads to
glorification of gender role of women i.e. men as producers and women should stay at home. The
preference for male child becomes more prominent as now people have money to take technological aid for
selective abortion of female fetus. This is one of the biggest reasons of adverse gender gap in case of
Punjab and Haryana.

Green revolution also had a big impact on the power and politics in India. The beneficiaries
from green revolution developed political aspirations. Hence they constituted political parties and peasant
leaders made appearance in the political arena to demand massive benefits in terms of subsidies for the
rich farmers.

Green revolution has intensified ethnic distinction among the people. It has been found out
that to consolidate the benefit from green revolution Sikh’s of Punjab distinguished themselves from non-
Sikhs of Haryana and Sikh dominated areas of Haryana. It has also intensified conflicts between poor
farmers and rich farmers within the village.

TH Omen considers that despite all its limitation green revolution contributed for the
unionisation of agricultural labourers, generated scope for rural employment, addressed to the problems of
rural poverty and changed India from a food deficit country into a food surplus country.

Taking these opinions into consideration it can be concluded that changes taking place in one
sector of the society is bound to have influence on the other sectors as well. Therefore green revolution
has immensely influenced to local politics, stratification systems, ethnic identity, gender status, inter-caste
relationships, regional identities. Therefore what needs to be taken into consideration is to examine the
prospects in retrospect effects of social change in India evolving on and after the effect of green
revolution.
 Changing modes of production in Indian agriculture

Changing modes of production in Indian agriculture is a reflection of the paradoxical character

of social transmission in India. Unlike West, India has not gone for a shift from feudalism to capitalism.
When capitalism developed in West from spoils of feudalism, to its contrast in case of India specific
pockets of capitalism developed from out of agriculture. Therefore agrarian transformation in India is driven
by regional diversity, historical differences and contemporary variabilities.

Marxist sociologists find out that unlike China, Russia peasant’s movement in India is not
polarised. The indicate that hegemonistic domination of the upper class stands on the way of peasant
mobilisation in India. It has and found out that multiple modes of production gives way to diverse class
structure in different parts of the country. As a result polarised class structure has evolved in case of
India. Gail Omvedt finds out the strong nexus between caste and class therefore caste conflict is a form of
class conflict India. Marxist sociologist consider that Indian agriculture is purely feudal in character i.e.
relationship it when land and labour is a traditional type.

Liberal sociologist look into various measures undertaken by the state accelerating scope for
mobility and opportunities. As a result vertical mobilisation (from below to up )of Indian peasantry is not
taking place in a big way. Andre Beteille's book "agrarian social structure" gives an analysis of these
conditions in detail.

A R Desai points out that land reform system has not been successful, Benami transfers are
taking place and big landlords use tenants in unofficial contracts so that the tenants can never go to the
court of law and therefore they don't enjoy their rights.

Taking into consideration historical factors in contemporary context it can be seen that
different modes of agriculture production is present in various parts of the country. During colonial period
Indian agriculture was purely feudalistic, however after introduction of governmental initiatives, people
protest, one can locate multiple modes of production in different parts of the country. In states like
Orissa, Manipur, Assam the colonial land tenure policy didn't have much impact, so one can find out that
landholding is small, traditional technology is used in agriculture, rural poverty is dispersed, caste and
landholding relationship is weak. Thus these areas can be considered as backwards, semifeudal regions.

In states like Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal landlords keep a certain
portion of land as reserved for commercial planning. The employer labourers on contractual basis than going
for hired labourers. Most of these areas are not greatly influenced by tenancy law. Traditional form of
relationship between landlords and peasant is present, caste and landholding though have strong
relationship. Therefore these areas identified as semifeudal or semi-capitalist region.
 In almost all the southern states capitalist agriculture has got momentum but the benefits
of this capitalism is pocketed by the dominant caste. Agriculture is not guided by intensive use of modern
technology and the rich farmers are not highly unionised and mostly the tenants and agricultural labourers
come from the lower castes. Therefore these areas can be identified as low intensive capitalist region.

In states like Punjab and Haryana, hired labour is used, production is made as a response to
demands of market, tenancy practices almost absent, farmers are you highly unionised and caste and its
relationship with land ownership is almost absent. Therefore class commission, class consolidation is
completing the cities and due to which these reasons are capitalist intensive region.

Thus, it can be concluded by saying that multiple modes of production are present in agrarian
India. Nevertheless 60% of the people are still landless, marginal farmers who come from Dalit community,
tribal origin and other ethnic groups. 16% of the agriculturists are coming from dominant caste (both
traditional and modern) including Brahmins, Rajputs, Bhumiars, Jats, Lingayats, Reddys and Yadav. The
rest of the population are coming from artisan caste who are the small or medium farmers.

Hence all over the country despite the presence of multiple modes of production one can find
out the clear-cut presence of three different classes i.e. upper-class, middle-class, lower class. Agrarian
transformation India has not really taken place in socialist direction, nor it has confirmed to the demands
of capitalism, thus agrarian transformation in India is typical illustration of complex nature of social change
in Indian society guided by multiple forms of possibilities and contradictions.

Rural Development

Rural Development is a composite measure undertaken by the state since India's independence
to improve the quality of life of the people living in rural areas, to effectively promote economic
development and delivery of health care, education and other infrastructural support.

The basic objective of rural development has always been the involvement of the people in
the developmental programmes, technological upgradation, training and skill development, full utilisation of
human resource potential and natural resources available in rural areas so as to ensure that development
evolves in India from grassroot than being enforced upon the people from the top.

Rural development implies both the economic betterment of people are as well as greater
social transformation. In order to provide the rural people with better prospects for economic
development, increased participation of people in the rural development programmes, decentralisation of
planning, better enforcement of land reforms and get access to credit are and why says

Community Development Programme seeks to empower individuals and groups of people by

providing these groups with the skills they need to affect change in their own communities. These skills are
often concentrated around formation of large social groups working for a common agenda. Community
developers must understand both how to work with individuals and how to affect communities' positions
within the context of larger social institutions.

Cooperative movement, an important aspect of rural development programme was devised to

provide multiple thrust to the process of rural development. It was expected that all people would come
together to achieve wonders for rural development for example collective farming, credit financing etc
requiring very little help from the government.

Scholars found out that rural development programme could not get momentum because of
strong caste consciousness, isolation of dominant caste of the village from Labour class, manipulation of
public funds, politicisation of developmental issues, inherent contradictions among villages during panchayat
elections and other factors. DL Joshi indicate that rural development programme started with a big
promise but it failed to alter the mindset of the people in hierarchical structure of over India thereby
leading to its premature collapse. Green revolution was meant for expansion of agriculture production,
though it was successful but it polarised the rural society into have and have-nots. Therefore it is said
that rural development should stand for economic benefits to people instead of just depending on green
revolution.

The various components of rural development programme are:

 Wage Employment Programs- which employment programmes have sought to achieve multiple
objectives. They not only provide employment opportunities during lean agricultural seasons but also
in times of floods, droughts and other natural calamities. They create rural infrastructure which
supports for the economic activity. These programs also put an upward pressure on market wage
rates by attracting people to public work programmes, thereby reducing labour supply and pushing
demand for labour. It encompasses national rural employment guarantee programme and and various
other rural employment programs to provide productive employment to the rural workforce.
 Employment assurance scheme: economic assurance scheme was launched in 1993 which was primarily
meant for the drought prone areas like desert, tribal and Hill area blocks. It was later extended to
all blocks in 19 9798. This scheme was designed to provide employment in the form of manual work
in the lean agricultural season. The works taken up under the programme were expected to lead to
the creation of durable economic and social infrastructure and address of needs of the people.
 Food for work programme : the food for work programme was started in 2000 – 01 as component
of employment assurance scheme in eight notified drought affected states of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat,
Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Uttaranchal. The programme
aims at food provision through wage employment. Foodgrains supplied to states free of cost.
However, lifting of foodgrains for the schemes from food Corporation of India godowns are slow.
  Rural housing : Initiated in 1985 – 86, the Indira Away Yojna(IAY) is the core program for
providing free housing to families in rural areas, SC/ST, households and freed bonded labourers. The
rural Housing program has certainly enabled many BPL families to acquire pucca houses. Provisions
like save drinking water, sanitation and common drainage facilities were taken up under the
programSamagra Awas Yojna (SAY). The Housing and Urban Development Corporation(HUDCO) has
extended its activities to the rural areas, providing loans at concessional rate of interest to
economically weaker sections and low income group households for construction of houses.
 Social Security programs : democratic decentralisation and centrally sponsored social assistance
programs were two major initiatives of the government in 1990s. The national special assistance
program launched in August 1995 marks a significant step towards fulfilment of the direct response
of state policy. The three compliments of national social assistance programme (NSAP) are national
old-age pension scheme, National family benefit scheme, National maternity benefit scheme. The
NSAP is centrally sponsored programme that aims at ensuring a minimum national standard of social
assistance over and above the assistance to states provide from their own resources.
 Land reforms : in Agro-based economy of, the structure of land ownership is central to the well-
being of the people. The government has strived to change the ownership pattern of cultivable land,
the abolition of intermediaries, the abolition of Zamindari system, ceiling laws, security of tenure
to tenants, consolidation of landholdings and banning of tenancy are few measures undertaken.

A study of rural development programmes from 1960s indicate that, the regional disparities
in development is a product of rural development programme. Development programme have intensified
caste consolidation and caste conflict in village India. Most of the rural development programme were
implemented through lower-level bureaucracy, as a result, the contractor, the petition and the optical axis
became stronger and most of these people belonging to upper caste pocketed all the benefits and expanded
the In higher caste and lower caste. Thus the modern institution instead of breaking down traditional
hierarchy made had killed relationship further stronger .

Most of the SC/ST, women could not benefit from the policies due to lack of awareness and
most of them did not have infrastructural support that could work as a guarantee to receive subsidised
loans from banks to initiate small trade or other kinds of activities.

By the beginning of 8th five year plan it was noticed that around 68 rural development
programmes with different names and target groups were introduced in the country leading to confusion in
resource allocation, programme implementation and evaluation. Due to these reasons all the programs were
put under one banner that gave way to “Integrated Rural Development Programme” (IRDP). The major
highlight of integrated rural development programme scheme was 50:50 share with regard to resource
allocation between state and Centre and also spatial component programme were extended for women and
rural youth. Emphasis was given on horticulture, sericulture, cottage industries. Rural infrastructure
building was also emphasised through programs like Food for Work and Employment Assurance Scheme that
hunted man days in a year will be available for every person in the village. Thus indicating all this
developmental programmes, rural development programme was founded on strong economic genesis.

It has been said that IRDP achieved milestone in a short period of time because of centrality
in its approach. However after 8th plan period the focus of rural development once again changed with
new government, new ideas, new schemes were introduced like Pradhan Mantri Gramodya
Yojna,Swarnajayanit Swarojgar Yojna, Anapurna Schemes to also address issues related to women,
destitutes, rural poors and landless. More recently National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme has
given an acceleration to rural development.

However to recent surveys and studies it has been found out that poverty sectoral in India.
Some states earlier located in poverty zones like Andhra Pradesh have achieved remarkable success whereas
other states like Orissa have shown no sign of progress.

Some sociologist's consider that various attributes related to poverty were not taken into
consideration while formulating rural development programmes. The consider that the source, infrastructure
conditions, cultural character of people, gender involvement with work are the non-economic variables that
must be studied in detail while formulating rural development programmes. Thus rural development
programme should be driven by localised needs, state specific and people centric in character.

In conclusion it can be advocated that massive rural development programmes in different

names with divergent he throws are being introduced in India since independence. It will be premature to
conclude that all of them have failed though it is a matter of fact that they have not produced a result
on expected lines. One learns from experience and more so from failure therefore one can conclude by
saying that success of National rural employment guarantee programme has drawn lessons from the failures
of IRDP, employment assurance scheme and food for work programme in the past. Thus it can be said
that it is not public policies alone but also knowledge about those policies and association of the
beneficiaries those policies can translate a team of rural development into reality.

Co-operatives

India has basically an agrarian economy with 72% of its total population residing in rural
areas . The rural people need lot of services in daily life which are met by village co-operative societies.
The seeds of cooperation in India were sown in 1904 when the first Cooperative Societies Act was passed
since then, the cooperative movement has made significant progress. Cooperatives have extended across the
entire country and there are currently an estimated 230 million members nationwide. The cooperative
credit system of India has the largest network in the world and cooperatives have advanced more credit in
the Indian agricultural sector than commercial banks. The village cooperative societies provide strategic
inputs for the agricultural sector, consumer societies meet their consumption requirements at concessional
rates; marketing societies help the farmer to get remunerative prices and co-operative processing units
help in value additions to the raw products etc. In addition, co-operative societies are helping in building
up of storage go-downs including cold storages, rural roads and in providing facilities like irrigation,
electricity, transport and health.

Various development activities in agriculture, small industry marketing and processing,

distribution and supplies are now carried on through co-operatives. In fertiliser production and distribution
the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) commands over 35 percent of the market. In the
production of sugar the cooperative share of the market is over 5 8 percent and in the marketing and
distribution of cotton they have a share of around 60 percent.

The cooperative sector accounts for 55 percent of the looms in the hand-weaving sector.
Cooperatives process, market and distribute 50 percent of edible oils. Dairy cooperatives operating under
the leadership of the National Dairy Development Board and through 15 state cooperative milk marketing
federations has now become the largest producer of milk in the world. The groundwork for this was laid in
the early 1970's when the largest dairy development programme in the world - Operation Flood - was
launched. Operation Flood was a national marketing strategy linked to a dairy infrastructure development
programme that created a chain of dairy processing plants, collection stations and a national milk
transportation grid. With the passage of the Insurance Act, cooperatives have been allowed to entry into
the insurance business. Insurance is a field where the immense potential of cooperatives still remains
untapped. The Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative has recently teamed up with a Japanese company and
formed a joint venture for undertaking general insurance business in India. This signifies that Indian
cooperatives have come of age in formulating strategic alliances.

Thus the co-operative societies in India in fact are playing multi-functional roles both in rural
and urban areas. An Expert Group constituted by the Govt of India in 1990 ,recommended i) to
facilitate building up of integrated co-operative structure; ii) to make the co-operative federation
organizations responsive towards their members; iii) to minimize government interference and control in
the functioning of co-operatives and iv) to eliminate politicization from the cooperative sector. Based on
the recommendations, the central govt enacted the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 which
provided for democratic and autonomous working of the Cooperatives, which came into force with effect
from August 19, 2002. Various development activities in agriculture, small industry marketing and
processing, distribution and supplies are now carried on through co-operatives. The co-operatives in India
have made an all-round progress and their role in, and contribution to agricultural progress has particularly
been significant.
Cooperation in a vast country like India is of great significance because :

 It is an organization for the poor , illiterate and unskilled people

 It is an institution of mutual help and sharing
 It softens the class conflicts and reduces the social cleavages
 It reduces the bureaucratic evils and follies of political factions
 It overcomes the constraints of agricultural development
 It creates conducive environment for small and cottage industries

Causes Of Slow Progress Of Cooperatives

Despite rapid growth the overall progress of cooperative movement during 100 years of its
existence is not very impressive. It is therefore necessary to know the causes of poor performance of the
movement and on that basis take such steps as would promote a faster growth of cooperative
movement in India.

There are several reasons for the slow progress of cooperatives such as:

 Government Interference : The cooperative movement in India was initiated in 1904 under the
auspices of British government. Right from the beginning the govt has adopted an attitude of
patronizing the movement. Cooperative institutions were treated as if these were part and parcel
of the administrative set up of the government. The govt interference thus became an essential
elements in the working of these institutions. As a result people’s enthusiasm for the movement
did not grow. The movement’s independence and self-reliance existed only on paper and files. After
attainment of independence in particular after beginning of the planning, some healthy changes in
the attitude of the govt did take place. It was not given proper importance that it deserves in
any plan. But even the cooperative movement has not become full-fledged people movement. Even
today quite often cooperative societies are imposed upon the people. This does bring about an
increase in the membership of the societies. But the spirit of cooperation cannot flower fully in
these circumstances. Neither its growth took place according to any plan nor did it become a
people’s movement. It just grew very slowly and that too haphazardly. It was a state driven
institution.

 Mismanagement and Manipulation: Over the years, this truly democratic idea got corrupted and
farmers with larger holdings grew more powerful. In practice, this altered the power structure of
the cooperatives. In the elections to the governing bodies money became such a powerful tool that
 the top posts of chairman and vice-chairman usually went to the richest farmers even though the
majority of members were farmers with small- or medium-sized holdings.

 Lack of awareness : People are not well informed about the objectives of the movement, the
contributions it can make in rebuilding the society and the rules and regulations of cooperative
institutions. Unfortunately, no special efforts have been made in this direction. People look upon
these institutions as means for obtaining facilities and concessions from the govt. So long as people
expect to get something from the govt, they see to it that societies somehow continue to
function. Lack of education, dirty politics of the village, caste ridden elections to the offices of
cooperative societies, bureaucratic attitudes of the govt officers at the lower rank are some of the
hurdles in spreading the correct information about the cooperative movement and in educating the
people about its true character and vital role in the society.

 Restricted coverage: The cooperative movement has also suffered on account of two important
limitations on its working. One is that the size of these societies has been very small. Most of
these societies are confined to a few members and their operations extended to only one or two
villages. As a result their resources remain limited, which I make it impossible for them to expand
their means and extend their area of operations to, the most of the societies have been single
purpose societies. For this reason these societies are unable to take a total view of the persons
seeking help, nor can they analyze and solve problems from different angles.. the help these
societies render thus can not be adequate. By assessing the persons and the problems only from
one angle , these societies neither help properly the person nor make optimal use of their resources.
Under these circumstances it has not been possible for these societies to make much progress.

 Functional weakness: The cooperative movement has suffered from inadequacy of trained personnel
right from its inception. Lack of trained personnel has been caused by two major factors. In the
first place, there has been a lack of institutions for the purpose of training personnel. Secondly
because of it unsatisfactory working of cooperative institutions, efficient personnel did not feel
attracted or motivated towards them. The functioning of the cooperative societies ,too suffer
from several weakness .Some of these are, taking no care of the need of credit seekers or their
repaying capacity at the time of granting loans, making no adequate provision for the return of
loans, unsatisfactory keeping of accounts, factional politics in it management, lack of coordination
among various divisions of the cooperative structure, too much dependence on outside sources of
finance ,lack of adequate auditing. Such weakness have prevented them from progressing on healthy
lines.
 Thus there are several pitfalls. Poor infrastructure, lack of quality management,
overdependence on government, dormant membership, non-conduct of elections, lack of strong human
resources policy, neglect of professionalism, etc. are the limiting factors. Indian cooperatives are also unable
to evolve strong communication and public relations strategies which can promote the concept of
cooperation among the masses.
UNIT 33 SOCIAL CHANGE
Structure
33.0 Objectives
33.1 Introduction
33.2 Meaning and Nature of Social Change
33.2.1 Three Aspects of Social Change

33.2.2 Some Allied Concepts

33.3 Theories on Social Change

33.3.1 The Evolutionary Perspective
33.3.2 Cyclical Theories
33.3.3 Structural Functionalist Perspective
33.3.4 Conflict Perspective

33.4 Factors in Social Change

33.4.1 Three Basic Sources of Social Change
33.4.2 Exogenous and Endogenous Origin of Change
33.4.3 Acceptance of and Resistance to Social Change
33.4.4 Some Factors that Affect Direction and Rate of Change

33.5 Relevance of Analysing Social Change

33.6 Let Us Sum Up
33.7 Key words
33.8 Further Readings
33.9 Model Answers to Check Your Progress

33.0 OBJECTIVES
On going through this unit, you should be able to:
• Define and describe the nature of social change;
• Differentiate the important theoretical approaches to social change;
• Discuss the factors that play an important role in bringing about social change;
and
• State the importance of analysing social change.

33.1 INTRODUCTION
So far, in this block you have studied the concepts of social control, deviance and
conflict. All these concepts help us to understand the universal process of change in
society. From its inception, sociology has been closely linked with the study of the
rapid changes in societies. This unit is basically concerned with nature, direction
and rate of changes in societies.
In this unit we will discuss the meaning and nature of social change; and how terms
43
like ‘evolution’ and ‘progress’ are different from the concept of ‘social change’.
Social Control, Change Then we will describe some theoretical approaches to social change, and the
and Development
important factors in social change. Finally, we will see how the theory of social
change is used in sociological inquiry.

33.2 MEANING AND NATURE OF SOCIAL

CHANGE
Change is a very broad concept. Though change is all around us, we do not refer to
all of it as social change. Thus, physical growth from year to year, or change of
seasons do not fall under the concept of social change. In sociology, we look at
social change as alterations that occur in the social structure and social relationship.

The International Encyclopaedia of the Social Science (IESS 1972) looks at change
as the important alterations that occur in the social structure, or in the pattern of
action and interaction in societies. Alterations may occur in norms, values, cultural
products and symbols in a society. Other definitions of change also point out that
change implies, above all other things, alteration in the structure and function of a
social system. Institutions, patterns of interaction, work, leisure activities, roles,
norms and other aspects of society can be altered over time as a result of the process
of social change.

33.2.1 Three Aspects of Social Change

From these and other definitions of social change, we can see that:

i) Social change is essentially a process of alteration with no reference to the

quality of change.

ii) Changes is society are related/linked to changes in culture, so that it would be

sometimes useful to talk about ‘socio-cultural change.

Some sociologists, however, differentiate between social change and cultural

change. Social change is defined as alterations in the social structure, (including
the changes in the size of society) or in particular social institutions, or in the
relationship between institutions. They feel that social change refers mainly to
actual human behaviour. Cultural change, on the other hand, refers to variation
in cultural phenomena such as knowledge and ideas, art, religion moral
doctrines, values, beliefs, symbol systems and so on. This distinction is abstract,
because in many situations it is difficult, or nearly impossible to decide which
type of change is occurring. For instance, growth of modern technology as
part of the culture, has been closely associated with alterations in the economic
structures, on important part of the society.

iii) Social change can vary in its scope and in speed. We can talk of small scale
or large scale changes. Changes can take a cyclical pattern, e.g. when there
is the recurrence of centralisation and decentralisation in administrative
organisations. It can also be revolutionary. Revolutionary change can be
seen when there is an overthrow of government in a particular nation. Change
can also include short term changes (e.g. in migration rates) as well as long
term changes in economic structures. We can include in social change, both
growth and decline in membership and size of social institutions. Change may
include continuous processes like specialisation, and also include discontinuous
processes such as a particular technical or social invention which appears at
44 some point of time.
Change also varies in scope, in that it may influence many aspects of a society and Social Change

disrupt the whole social system. The process of industrialisation which affected
many aspects of society. In contrast, the substitution of matches for rubbing sticks
to start a fire had a relatively limited scope.
Some changes occur rapidly but others take a long time. Many of the Western
nations took many decades to become industrialised, but developing nations are
trying to do it more quickly. They do this by borrowing or adapting from those
nations which have already achieved it.
Today most sociologists assume that change is a natural, inevitable, ever present
part of life in every society. When we are looking at social change, we are focusing
not on changes in the experiences of an individual, but on variations in social structures,
institutions and social relationship.
33.2.2 Some Allied Concepts
Social change is seen to be a neutral concept. The two other terms that have often
been allied with this concept are ‘evolution’ and ‘progress’.
i) Evolution expresses continuity and direction of change. It means more than
growth. ‘Growth’ implies a direction of change but essentially in size or quality.
Evolution involves something more intrinsic, a change not only in size but also
of structure.
ii) Progress implies change in direction towards some final desired goal. It involves
a values judgement.
All changes are not evolutionary and all changes are not progressive. Discussion of
the direction of change need not involve any value judgements. The diminishing size
of the family, and the increasing size of economic units, are matters of historical fact.
‘Social change’ is a value-neutral term, in the sense that the sociologists do not study
social change in terms of “good or bad”, desirable or undesirable. One must admit,
however, that it is a difficult task indeed to make a value-free critical analysis of
changes, taking place in the structure of a society.
Check Your Progress 1

Note: a) Use the space given below for your answers.

b) Compare your answers with those given at the end of this unit.

1) Define social change in two lines.

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

2) What are the main characteristics of social change? Use four lines for your
answer.

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................ 45
Social Control, Change 3) Differentiate between the following terms:
and Development
Change, Evolution and Progress. Use six lines for your answer.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

33.3 THEORIES ON SOCIAL CHANGE

The major sociological theories of change can be classified in various ways. One
can, for instance make a distinction between evolutionary, (linear) and cyclical theories
of social change. Among the former, the most significant are those of Comte,
Spencer, Hobhouse and Marx. Among the latter, the most prominent ones are
those of Spengler, Pareto, and Sorokin. In this unit, we shall briefly examine the
following perspectives on change:
i) the evolutionary perspective,
ii) the cyclical perspective,
iii) the structural-functional perspective, and
iv) the conflict perspective.
33.3.1 The Evolutionary Perspective
The notion of social evolution was taken from the theories of biological evolution.
Spencer propounded an analogy between social and organic growth and between
society and an organisation. The theories of social evolution are composed of one
or more of the following principles−change, order, direction, progress and
perfectibility. The principle of change states that the present system is the outcome,
of more or less continuous modification from its original state. Some evolutionists
add to the principles of change the notion that change must have an order.
Other evolutionists combine the principles of change and order with the principle of
direction, thereby suggesting that there is a natural linear order of change in a social
system. The evolutionary process of change implies, that every society goes through
distinctive and successive states of existence and orientation. Comte, for instance,
proposed a directional theory of society. He suggested that a society evolves from
a theological orientation, to a metaphysical orientation to a positivistic orientation.
Durkheim classified societies into simple societies united by similarity of their members,
(what he called mechanical solidarity) and complex societies based on specialisation
and functional interdependence of members (what he called organic solidarity). This
also suggests a directional evolutionary pattern.
It has been pointed out that it is sometimes difficult in evolutionary theory, to
differentiate simple direction from progress. The common theme in much of the
evolutionary literature is that societies progress over time, to a point where they
industrialise and develop in the path and manner of western nations. Extreme
46 expressions of this position are contained in the notion of perfectibility. Societies
continue to move toward some ideal advanced state of industrialisation. However, Social Change

the neo-evolutionary theories that have emerged in recent years, are more tentative
than the evolutionary theories of the 19th century and early 20th century. These neo-
evolutionary theorists do not assert that change proceeds along the same path. They
suggest that there is a general trend towards a more elaborate division of labour.
They take on a relativistic view, in that they recognise that different cultures have
different ideas of what constitutes progress. One of the greatest problems of older
theories of evolution was that they too often contained untestable, sometimes
ethnocentric propositions.
33.3.2 Cyclical Theories
The basic premise of the cyclical theories is: cultures and civilisations pass through
stages of change, starting and often ending with the same stage. This passing through
stages is called a cycle. The cycle when completed, repeats itself over and over
again. The ancient civilisations in Greece, China and India for instance, can be
explained by the principle of cycles.
Some cyclical theorists are pessimistic in that they think that decay is inevitable.
Oswald Spengler (1945) believed that every society is born, matures, decays and
eventually dies. The Roman Empire rose to power and then gradually collapsed.
The British empire grew strong, and then deteriorated. Spengler believed that social
change may take the form of progress or of decay, but that no society lives for ever.
Pareto (1916) presented in his theory of the circulation of elites, an interpretation of
history according to which social change is brought about, by the struggle between
groups for political power. His theory was inadequate in that it was based on a
limited instance of the circulation of elites in ancient Rome. His conception of political
change ignored the growth of democratic government in modern times.
More recently Sorokin (1975) has presented theories which have some features of
the cyclical perspective. Sorokin’s theory is based on the principle of immanent
socio-cultural change. This implies that any socio-cultural system (i.e. society and
civilisation) alters by virtue of its own forces and properties. This principle is interlinked
to another principle, namely, the principle of limited possibilities of change. There is
a limit to the number of alterations that can develop in a system. For example, there
is a limit to the new forms of change, and to new patterns of behaviour, that can
emerge in a society. The system simply runs out of combinations in due time. If it
does not die, it eventually starts running through the changes again. Thus, there is
“recurrence” or “rhythm” in the histories of socio-cultural systems.]
Sorokin also makes a distinction between three broad types of culture-ideational,
idealist and sensate-which he conceives as succeeding each other in cycles, in the
history of societies. Ideational culture is spiritualistic, mystical and indeterminate.
Sensate culture is the realm of science and of direct sensory experiences. Idealistic
culture has certain characteristic of both the ideational and sensate cultures. These
three types of cultures are looked upon as three views of reality that change according
to the two principles mentioned above.

Activity 1
Keeping in mind Sorokin’s distinction between three kinds of cultures, ideational,
idealist and sensate; where will you place society in India? Write an essay on
“Indian Society and Culture in the Context of Social Change” in about two
pages share your essay with other students and Academic Counsellor at the
study centre.
47
Social Control, Change Sorokin’s work is specially noteworthy not only because it contains a mass of
and Development
historical analogies and comments on particular social transformations, but also
because it saw societies as ‘changing’ rather than necessarily progressing or decaying.
33.3.3 Structural Functionalist Perspective
Structural functional, as you have read in Unit 25 and 28 has its roots in the work of
the early sociologists especially Durkheim and Weber. Among contemporary scholars
it is most closely associated with the work of Parsons and Merton.
Structural functionalists believe that society, like the human body, is a balanced
system. Each institution serves a function in maintaining society. When events outside
or inside the society, disrupt the social order, social institutions make adjustments to
restore stability.
They also argue that change generally occurs in a gradual, adjustive fashion and not
in a sudden violent, radical fashion. Even changes which appear to be drastic, have
not been able to make a great or lasting impact on the core elements, of the social
and cultural systems. Change according to them comes from basically three sources:
i) Adjustment of the system to exogenous change (e.g. war, conquests),
ii) Growth through structural and functional differentiation (e.g. changes in the
size of population through births and deaths),
iii) Innovations by members of groups within society (e.g. inventions and discovery
in a society).
The most important and basic factor making for social integration and stability,
according to this school of thought, is value consensus.
The term ‘cultural lag’ is often used to describe the state of disequilibrium between
material and non-material aspects of a culture. Ogburn (1886-1959) who coined
this word, explained that ‘cultural lag’ occurs when parts of a culture that were once
in adjustment with each other change at different rates, and become incompatible
with each other. Ogburn (1922) pointed out how the non-material culture (values,
beliefs, norms, family, religion) often lags behind material culture (technology, means
of production output of the economic system). For example, family planning
technologies (i.e. material culture) have advanced, but people take their time to
accept them. Some sections of the population may reject the very idea of ‘family
planning’ and believe in having a large family. Again, when an event such as increase
in population or a depletion in natural resources cause a strain in society, it takes
some time for the society to understand and absorb the strain and alter its values
and institutions to adapt to the change. But in order to function smoothly, societies
adjust to maintain and restore themselves.
Critics have pointed out that the amount and kind of changes that can be explained,
with the help of the structural functionalist perspective is limited. This view neglects
revolutionary changes which are profound and sudden. It also overlooks the
possibility of a society going through long periods of malintegration, as during times
of economic recession (Eshleman and Cashion: 1983 : 533)
33.3.4 Conflict Perspective
The conflict theory takes the principle of dialectic (opposites) as central to social
life. Conflict theory also has its origins in early sociology, especially in the works of
Marx. Conflict theorists do not assume that societies smoothly evolve to higher or
48 complex levels. According to this school every pattern of action, belief and interaction
tends to generate an opposing reaction. Modern life is full of examples. The Social Change

legalisation of abortion has provoked the anti-abortion movement. The feminist

movement has stimulated a reaction from men and women. The liberalisation of
sexual mores has led to open denunciation. The basic premise is that one of the
outcomes of conflict among groups is social change. The greatest limitation of this
approach is that it lays too much emphasis on conflict, as the most important factor
of change.

In more recent sociological writing, there is yet another perspective of social change
called the ‘development perspective’. The development perspective grew from
three main sources:

i) From the study of economic growth. Economists and to a great extent other
social scientists, view quantitative growth in the economic sphere of life, as an
important indicator of a country’s progress. For example, they point out that
a country’s prosperity can be measured in terms of GNP (Gross National
Product) or per capita income.

ii) From the categorisation of all societies into technologically advanced, and
less technologically advanced. Sometimes, the emphasis is on industrialisation
and consequently societies that are highly industrialised, are seen to be more
developed than societies which are basically agricultural.

iii) From the comparison of the capitalist countries with the socialist or communist
countries.

Many social scientists have compared the socialist economy and social organisation
with Western capitalist economy and organisation. At this juncture we will not
elaborate on this perspective, as you are going to look at it in the next unit.
The development approach to social change, brought into sharp focus, the need
for formulating a broad comparative perspective, which would take into
account the complex and diverse relationships between developing countries,
between technologically advanced countries, and between technologically advanced
countries and developing nations. It can be said from the above discussion of the
various perspective, that no single theory can account for the complexity of social
change.

Check Your Progress 2

Note: a) Use the space given below for your answers.

b) Compare your answers with those given at the end of this unit.

1) Name, in two lines, the five principles on which theories of social evolution
are based.

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

2) How does the structural-functional theory look at social change? Use three
lines for your answer.

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................ 49
Social Control, Change 3) What is the main argument of the conflict perspective? Use two lines for your
and Development
answer.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

33.4 FACTORS IN SOCIAL CHANGE

The problems of why change occurs and why it has been made possible, and what
affects the rate of change, is closely linked with the general problem of the factors in
social change. It is more common to speak of the factors that affect social change,
rather than the causes of change. Why? A cause implies that a phenomenon or
event, is both necessary and sufficient to produce a predictable effect. The word
‘necessary’ suggests that we can never have the effect without the preceding cause.
The word ‘sufficient’ implies that the cause alone produces the effect. It is very
difficult to establish ‘necessity and sufficiency’ in the social sciences. We prefer to
speak of “factors of change” rather than “causes” of social change (Horton and
Hunt: 1981).
33.4.1 Three Basic Sources of Social Change
Some sociologists propose that social change takes place basically in one or more
of the following three ways:
i) Discovery
A shared human perception of an aspect of reality which already exists e.g. discovery
of blood circulation in biology. It is an addition to the world’s store of verified
knowledge. However, it becomes a factor in social change only when it is put to
use, not when it is merely known.
ii) Inventions
A new combination or a new use of existing knowledge e.g. the assembling of the
automobile from an already existing idea. The idea of combining them was new.
Inventions can be material (technology) and social (alphabet, trade union). Each
invention may be new in form (i.e. in shape or action) in function (what it does) or in
meaning (its long range consequences) or in principle (the theory or law on which it
is based).
iii) Diffusion
Diffusion refers to the spread of cultural traits from one group to another. It operates
both within and between societies. It takes place whenever societies come into
contact with each other. Diffusion is a two way process. The British gave us their
language and made tea an important ritual for us Indians; but they adopted several
terms in English from us, for example, Pacca Sahib, Chchota haziri, Jaggernaut, etc.
Diffusion is also a selective process. Majority of the Indians may adopt the English
language, but not their beef-eating habits. Diffusion generally involves some
modification of the borrowed elements of culture either in form, function or meaning
33.4.2 Exogenous and Endogenous Origin of Change
It is very difficult to determine where and how change originates. Some sociologists
have offered a distinction between endogenous change (change originating from
within) and exogenous change (change entering from outside). In practice, the origin
50
of change, can only rarely be assigned wholly to one or the other category. It can be Social Change

argued that wars and conquest (exogenous origin) have played an active part in
bringing about major social changes in societies across the world. Again it could be
said that in the modern world, the changes taking place in the developing countries
have been stimulated to a large extent, by Western technology which was introduced
in most cases following colonial rule. But in all societies, including those in which the
initial impetus has come from outside, social change has depended to a great extent
upon the activities of various social groups within the society. A major part of
sociological analysis consists in identifying the spheres and groups, that are principally
affected, and the ways in which innovations are diffused from one sphere to another
(Bottomore: 1987: 288)
33.4.3 Acceptance of and Resistance to Social Change
This leads us on to another in social change, namely acceptance of and resistance to
social change. Innovations (inventions and discovery are together termed as
innovations) are rarely accepted totally. The specific attitudes and values of the
society in question, the manifest usefulness of the innovations, the compatibility of
the innovations with the existing culture, vested interests, and the role of change
agents are some of the important factors that affect the degree of acceptance of and
resistance to social change.
33.4.4 Some Factors that Affect Direction and Rate of Change
Social change has two important aspects: direction and rate. Here, we shall discuss
the factors that affect the direction and rate of changes in society.
i) Geography, Population and Ecology
These factors are seen to bring about sudden changes or set a limit on social change.
Climatic conditions, natural resources, physical location of a country, natural disasters
can be important sources of change. A natural disaster like floods may destroy
entire population, force people to migrate to another place, or make them rebuild
their community all over again. Similarly, increase and decrease in the size of human
population through birth, death or migration can pose a serious challenge to economic,
and political institutions. Today, many geographic alterations and natural disasters
are induced by the activities of the inhabitants or a region. Soil erosion, water and
air pollution may become severe enough to trigger off new norms and laws regarding
how to use resources and dispose waste products.
ii) Technology
Technology is recognised as one of the most crucial factors in social change. You
may read Ogburn’s concept of ‘culture lag’ in detail, to understand how technology
has been an important factor in social change. The modern factory, means of
transportation, medicine, surgery, mass media of communications, space and
computers technology etc. have affected the attitudes, values and behaviour of people
across societies. To take a simple example, automobiles and other means of modern
transportation have spread culture, by increasing interaction among people who live
far away from each other. The technological feats in the area of transport and
communication have altered leisure activities, helped in maintaining social networks,
and stimulated the formation of new social relationships.
iii) Values and Beliefs
The role of values in social change has been clearly brought out in Max Weber’s
book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber proposed that 51
Social Control, Change
and Development

Technology as an Import Factor in Social Change

some historical situations, doctrines or ideas may independently affect the direction
of social change. He tried to show that the rise of modern capitalism was mainly
rooted in religious values as contained in ascetic Protestantism.
Conflict over incompatible values and beliefs can be an important source of change.
For instance values regarding racial or caste superiority, may clash with the values
of equality of opportunity and status. New laws have emerged to ensure that people
do not face discrimination on the basis of caste or race. Conflicts between group
within a society, have been and are a major source of innovation and change. For
instance, the establishment of political democracy in Western Europe can be said to
be largely the outcome of class struggles.
iv) The Great Men and Women : The role of individuals in social change
It has been pointed out that the contribution by men of genius and leaders to social
change is important. The “great men” (which includes several women leaders as
well) faced a set of circumstance, and their influence arose in part from their ability
52
to drawout persuasively the latent aspirations, anxieties and fears of large numbers Social Change

of people. They were also charismatic leaders. These leaders owed their positions
to personal qualities, and left upon events the mark of their own convictions
(Bottomore 1987: 283).
There are many more factors that can be discussed while dealing with the questions
why, how and at what rate change occurs.

33.5 RELEVANCE OF ANALYSING SOCIAL

CHANGE
No single theory or factor can explain the origin, direction, manner or consequences
of social change. Change is such a complex process, that it is difficult to explain its
causes, limits and consequences in a definitive specific manner. Sociological research
studies in recent years have concentrated on specific process of social change, and
its effects on society.
Though, sociologists say that they are trying to look at change in an objective manner,
the idea of progress is still very much present in modern social thought. According
to Bottomore (1987), it is evident in the serious commitment to economic growth in
the industrial countries, and subsequently in the countries of the Third World. More
recently, he feels, it has provided the impetus for critical evaluation of unlimited and
uncontrolled economic growth. The effects of technology on the environment has
animated powerful ecology movements, in most of the industrial and industrialising
countries. There are debates about the nature of a “good society” in relation to the
rapid advance of science and technology and to unrestrained consumerism. According
to Bottomore (1987: 290-1), it is not the business of the sociologist as such to
define, a “good” society “or a desirable quality of life” but it is his/her responsibility
indeed to:
i) be aware of those issues relating to human welfare.
ii) Outline as precisely as possible the alternative courses of change and their
implications, and
iii) Indicate what social forces are at work in producing one outcome rather than
another.

Activity 2
Discuss about the type of changes in material and non-material culture
(such as, values, beliefs, customs etc.) that has taken place in your family,
community/society with three persons, one of your Grandfathers generation,
one of your father’s and one of your own generation. List out the type of
changes observed by these three persons and write a note of one page on
“Social Change in My Family”. Compare your note with these of other students
at your study centre.

Check Your Progress 3

Note: a) Use the space given below for your answers.

b) Compare your answers with those given at the end of this unit.
1) List out the three basic ways in which change takes place. Use three lines to
53
Social Control, Change answer.
and Development

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
2) What are the two sources from which change can originate? Use one line for
your answer.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
3) What are the five important factors that are seen to affect the acceptance of,
and resistance to social change? Use eight lines for your answer.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
4) List out the four factors that affect the rate and direction of change. Use five
lines for your answer.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

33.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we looked at different dimensions of the complex phenomena of social
change. We began our examination by defining social change and outlining its nature.
We pointed out, how vast the scope of social change could be. We then proceeded
to differentiate between social change, and two other allied concepts like ‘evolution’
and ‘progress’. In our discussion on theoretical perspectives regarding change, we
focused on the evolutionary, cyclical, functionalist and the conflict perspectives. We
were able to gather that no single theory can account for social change. Social
change is occasioned by a constellation of factors like geography, technology, values,
leaders etc. We said that discovery, inventions and diffusion are the three basic
ways in which change can occur, and the origin of change can be endogenous,
exogenous or both. The acceptance or resistance to change varies due to the
operation of some factors, that were discussed.
54
 Social Change
33.7 KEY WORDS
Culture lag : The time gap that occurs when changes in material culture come
more rapidly than changes in the non-material culture.
Cyclical Change: It refers to a course or series of events, that recur regularly and
lead back to the starting point.
Diffusion : The process by which cultural traits spread from one culture to
another.
Evolution : A particular process of change, (intrinsic in nature) which
expresses continuity and direction of change, involving alterations
in size and structure of a system.
Innovation : Discovery and inventions are together considered as innovation.
Linear Change : It refers to the direction of change from point A to B to C in a
line.
Progress : Alterations which proceed in the direction of some desired goal.
Social Change : Alterations that occur in the social structure and function of a
social system.

33.8 FURTHER READINGS

Bottomore, T., 1987. Sociology. A guide to Problems and Literature, (III Edition),
Allen and Unwin: London.
Davis, K., 1981. Human Society, Subject Pulitcations: New Delhi.
Ogburn W.F. and M. Nimcoff, 1979. A Handbook of Sociology, Emasca Publishing
House: New Delhi.

33.9 MODEL ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
1) Social change refers to the alterations that occur in the social structure, and
social relationships in a society.
2) Social Change is essentially a process of alteration, with no reference to the
quality of change. Changes in culture are related to changes in society. Changes
also vary in scope and speed.
3) Evolution expresses continuity and direction of change, implying change not
only in size but also of structure. Progress implies change in a desirable
direction. Change on the other hand is considered to be a value neutral concept
which refers to alterations in both structure and social relationships in a society.
Check Your Progress 2
1) The four principles on which the theories of social evolution are based are
change, order, direction, progress and perfectibility.
2) According to this school, change disrupts the social order but the social
institutions makes adjustments to restore stability. Change generally occurs in
a gradual, adjustive fashion and does not affect the core elements in the socio-
55
cultural system.
Social Control, Change 3) The basic argument is that every pattern of action, belief, interaction tends to
and Development
generate an opposing reaction. The outcome of conflict among groups is
social change.
Check Your Progress 3
1) Discovery, inventions and diffusion are the three basic ways in which changes
takes place.
2) Change can originate from endogenous and exogenous sources.
3) The five important factors are:
a) Specific attitudes and values of a society in which change has been
introduced,
b) The manifest usefulness of the innovations,
c) The compatibility of the innovations with the existing culture,
d) Vested interests, and
e) Role of change agents.
4) The four factors that affect the rate and direction of change are:
a) Geography, population, ecology,
b) Technology,
c) Values and beliefs, and
d) Role of Great men and women.

56
Unit 9
Education and Social Change
Contents
9.1 lntroduction
9.2 Concept of Social Change
9.3 Goals, Objectives and Structural Patterns of Education
9.4 Education and Change, in Society
9.5 Education and Social Change in India
9.6 Conclusion
9.7 Further Reading
Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, you shou1.d be able to understand the:
meaning and process of social change;
interplay between education and social and economic development;
relationship between education, the underprivileged and democracy; and
relationship between education and social change in Indian society.

9.1 lntroduction
The relationship of education with social change is not a simple, unilateral
one, as perhaps many would like t o believe, for education i s not only
instrumental in bringing about social change, it is also quite interestingly
instrumental in maintaining the status quo. In other words, education plays
both a 'conservative' and 'radical' role, i.e., it helps both in 'maintaining' and
'changing' different aspects of the social system.

Social scientists have he1.d diverse positions on the relationship between

education and social change. There are some (Althusser 1972) who treat
education as the most important 'ideological state apparatus' appropriated by
the ruling classes to pursue their own ideas and interests. They maintain that
education is an instrument forged by the ruling classes to serve and preserve
their own interests and largely to maintain the status quo in the existing
economic and political power structure. At the other end, are many social
scientists, politicians, educationists and educational .planners who consider
education as an important instrument of social change, particularly i n the
context of third world countries. Here, education i s treated as effecting
economic development and social change. In post-revolutionary Russia, for
example schools were assigned the task of destroying old bourgeoisie values
and creating new values appropriate to a socialist society. We have seen that
the educational system i s responsible for encouraging innovation in the material
and technological spheres. This may involve training the labour force in these
skills, challenging traditional attitudes, or promoting social mobility and allowing
new elites to threaten and replace those before them. Some of these
expectations are, to a large extent, contradictory. The radical and innovation
functions of education are hard to reconcile with its role in the transmission
of culture. Also, schools and universities are themselves a part of society
subject to pressures from other parts of the social system. In a highly stratified
society, for example, it i s unrealistic to expect schools to inculcate strongly
egalitarian principles. They are likely to function in these societies as important
agencies within the stratification system training the young for adult roles.
Only where egalitarianism i s accepted as part of the dominant value system of
a society i s i t Likely either to influence the organization of education or to be
part of the moral and social training imparted at school. Developments i n the
Education, Social education system are largely also influenced considerably by economic and
Processes and Institutions technological factors. Education i n turn may also influence social and economic
change as a consequence of the role i t plays in the processes of discovery and
dissemination of newly acquired knowledge.

In this Unit we will focus on an analysis of education in the context of social

change, but before doing that we will examine the concept and meaning of
social change and factors that are instrumental i n causing it. We will also
discuss the goals and structural pattern of the formal education system.

9.2 Concept of Social Change

Social change has been defined by sociologist Wilbert Moore (1963) as a
significant alteration over time in behaviour patterns and culture, including
norms and values. It is important to understand how the rate and nature of
change brings about alteration in society. In simpler societies, change is unusually
slow: tradition, ritual, rites of passage, and social hierarchies- these are
some of the basic elements that have held such societies together. These
elements weaken i n the event of culture contact, and disasters such as wars,
disease and famine.

Terms such as 'progress', 'evolution', 'process' and so forth are often used,
when understanding the concept of social change. R. M. Maclver and C. H.
Page (1950) have discussed and distinguished between these terms. The word,
'process' implies the idea of continuity; 'all that is meant by process is the
definite step-by-step manner through which one state or stage merges into
another'. Nothing is said here about the quality, of the process. I t is simply
a way of describing how things happen in society; and also the way in which
people adapt t o certain elements i n their society, or are assimilated to certain
forms of activity, or adjust themselves to specific modes of behaviour.

The term evolution implies a scientific concept of development and change,

an unrolling or unfolding, a movement in some particular direction. Maclver
and Page (1950) consider that societies may be classified as more or less
evolved according to the complexity of their differentiation. More evolved
simply implies a greater complexity and differentiation within the society; but
again, evolution' is not merely a quantitative process. For Maclver and Page,
'wherever i n the history of society we find an increasing specialization of
organs or units within the system or serving the life of the whole, we can
speak of social evolution.' The words progress and process are frequently used
in popular discussion as interchangeable words, but in the context of social
change, a t least, progress involves judgment whereas process is simply
descriptive of continuity. Value-judgments are relative, and what may
constitute social progress for one may represent retrogression, decay or
stagnation for another. It all depends on the sort of ideal one has of society
itself and the goal at which one is aiming.

W. J. H. Sprott (1967) presents a clear and simplified scheme of social change

within a very narrow spectrum. According to him there is, firstly exogenous
change which is caused by agencies external to society itself. Such factors as
invasion, colonization, settlement, culture contact and disease are highly
unpredictable and capable of effecting social disequilibrium and change.
Secondly, there is endogenous change, which occurs from within the society.
Sprott divides endogenous change into two main types according to their
degree of predictability. There is 'episodic change' which i s brought about
within a society by some event, which could not have been predicted from
one's personal knowledge of the state of our society. This applies particularly
within the realm of inventions, which may have devastating effects upon the
whole fabric and lifestyle of society. In fact the invention i n itself (e.g. radar,
atomic energy, laser beams) is neutral. I t is the use t o which one puts an
 invention that decides whether society will progress or retrogress; but it W i l l Education an
certainly change. There is, however, also 'patterned change' within the society,
which permits a more precise prediction. Such prediction is of short - term
nature and it depends upon the increase i n a society of mutual concern,
planning, rationality'and an organized programme of social welfare, as well as
political and economic consensus.

Most of what has been said here can be reduced to a consideration of change
under three main types of factors or conditions: physical and biological;
technological; and cultural. A consideration of physical and biological factors
involves such problems as the changing size and average age of a population,
the varying balance between deaths and births, and the variations in the race,
colour and culture in the differing elements of population. Geographical factors,
environment, habitats and ecological modifications may also affect society in
terms of the occupations people pursue. Technological factors may mean the
vast improvement in mechanical devices, i n fertilizers and seeds, and in the
acceptance of the importance of management, economics, accountancy, and
genetics - not as extras or sidelines, but as intrinsic dimensions of agriculture
itself. Other technological advances have included the development of physical
transportation by means of rail, aeroplane and automobile, and discovery and
harnessing of atomic energy.

Reflection and action 9.1

What is social change?

9.3 Goals, Objectives and Structural Patterns of

Education
It i s true that some of the so-called 'universal' or 'society - oriented' goals
of education in a society articulate the thinking of the philosophers and social
reformers of the times many of whom project a future in terms of ideal
society. 'This can be illustrated by examples of many western and eastern
I educational philosophers. At this juncture, you may refer to units 1, 3 and 4.
In actual operation it has been shown that, i n most countries, the system
works (both i n its form and content) with a decisive social bias, heavily in
favour of the upper or dominant strata of society. At the same time, it provides
occupational and social mobility to a small number from the social strata. The
educational system i s largely conditioned by the prevalent socio-economic and
political power structure. I t s expansion, growth and development are
tuned to the requirements of this social structure; the changes in it are
directed by the changes in this structure and particularly by the changes in
the economic, social and political distribution of power. An education system
which i s a social product and part of the entire social system, acquires a
collateral relationship with it. This relationship, however, cannot be of one to
one correspondence.

Imbalances and incongruities do occur giving rise at times to dissatisfaction

and dissent, disharmony, dissonance and even revolt. In other words, along
with correspondence and collaterality there are contradictions too. First, the
social situation, together with i t s underlying socio-economic structure and
the political power structure are never static. These have their repercussions
on the education systems as well. In the course of i t s development, the
education system acquires certain autonomy and i t s own dynamics of
development. I t can generate conflict i n the over values of different
components of a system or over values of one or more components. Finally,
education has a dual character. Although the process of education socializes
individuals to conform to the norms and values of society, it also has the
capacity t o generate a spirit of enquiry and question the accepted norms. It
Education, Social has the potential to encourage people to question the dominant values and
ProcessesandlnstitutiOns norms i n society, and to make them rebel against the existent societal
constraints.

9.4 Education and Change in Society

It i s with reference to the cultural factors of social change that one talks of
'
education from a conventional perspective. Education mediates and maintains
the cultural heritage of the society. But, whilst seeking to conserve, education
must also ensure that culture lag i n society is minimized. This means that
there must be some attempt to adjust the old culture to new conditions in
order that individuals within a society may keep up with technological change.
Patterns of culture and of institutions change rapidly, even though the average
member of society may be virtually unaware of the transformations taking
place around her.

Schools exist not merely to reflect and mediate the cultural inheritance of a
society and current change; they exist also to assist i n the promotion of social
change and reform. One need only look at such countries as Germany, Russia,
India and Pakistan, and the evolving societies of the continent: of Africa and
South America, to see that education has been, and is being, used as an agent
of social change. A great deal, of course, depends here upon the nature of the
political system of any particular society.

Durkheim (1956) argued that there was not just one form of education, ideal
or actual, but many forms. There were, in fact, many different forms of
education. So, society as a whole, and each particular context would determine
the type of education that was realized or could be realized. Durkheim explained
that education was crucial i n terms of preserving a certain degree of
homogeneity, and ingraining the essential elements of collective life. He,
however, felt that it was also very important t o ensure that there was a
certain amount of diversity i n society, without which any form of co-operation
would be impossible.

There is, and must be, an interaction between education and society. I t is not
just a one -way process i n which education is wholly determined by the state
or by the demands of society. The institution and structure of education can,
in turn, change and modify the social structure. Society at large may dictate
the change, through the free election of political parties to power. In turn the
programme, form and schedule of education which, to a large extent are
directed and controlled by the political and social aims of society at any
particular time, may contribute to the change. A study of comparative education
will adequately reveal the fact that the ideologies, the political ideals, and the
social aims of countries like China, the USA and the USSR, France, Germany
and England, are reflected in their educational systems. Education, however,
does not merely reflect society, it serves to bring change in it too.

Karl Mannheim (1960) also explored the problem of social change and social
progress i n relation to education. He explained that there was a lack of
; weness in social affairs as well as a lack of comprehensive sociological
orie, "%n. The leaders of the nation, including teachers, should be educated
in a way which would enable them to understand the meaning of change.
Mannheim argued that i n the present situation no teaching was sound unless
it trained people t o be conscious of the social situation in which they find
themselves, and to be able after careful deliberation to make their choices
and take decisions. Education, some philosophers believe, must therefore be
for mobility, for flexibility of thought and action, for producing individuals
with a high general level of culture so that they.adapt to changing economic
and social conditions
 According to Kamat (1985) there are four positions regarding education ahd Education and Social
social change (i) Education is for. itself and has nothing to do with social Change
change; (ii) Education is determined completely by social factors and can
therefore, play no role in changing society. It follows social change; (iii)
Education is an autonomous or relatively autonomous factor and therefore can
and does induce social change; (iv) Educational change and social change must
take place simultaneously (Kamat 1985: 172). There are a few who maintain
that either education and social change bear the no link with each other or
that education has no role to perform in changing society.

If social change refers to fundamental structural changes in society, it is clear

that the socio-economic factor and the political factor rather than education
have primary importance in the process of social change. Education can facilitate
the process of social change as a necessary and a vital collateral factor. It often
contributes to igniting, accelerating and sustaining the process by disseminating
and cultivating knowledge, information, skills and values appropriate to the
changing socio-economic and political structure. Moreover i n a rapidly changing
situation, for example i n a post revolutionary period, when fundamental
structural changes are taking place rapidly, education can undoubtedly operate
as a powerful means to demolish the cultural and ideological superstructure
and to build in its place an altogether new structure appropriate to the
situation which would be i n harmony with the newborn society. In some
L countries, a whole new system of education evolved replacing the old system
after revolutionary socio-economic and political structural changes. For example,
after the British conquest of India a system of modern education was introduced
under the aegis of the British rulers.
I
The liberating and renovating characteristics of education get enhanced by
counter- posing an alternative ideology which is in accordance with the emerging
social situation. This entails challenging the existing ideology. It would be a
hyperbole to say that education is the main instrument or the single most
important factor of social change. Statements such as this are made for
rhetorical purposes, sometimes even to confuse the common people, particularly
when they are delivered by politicians. Often, they reflect (i) an incorrect
understanding of the role of education; (ii) an incorrect assumption that a far-
reaching structural transformation is already taking place and that education
therefore should come forward to play its crucial role in consummating the
transformation; and (iii) an essentially social reformist and welfare perspective
with no bid for a far reaching structural transformation. Education is expected
to play its role in the furtherance of economic growth and social change
within the present socio-economic structural framework.

The role of education as a factor of social development is defined by the twin

facts that education is permeated by the social biases of society and that
those who seek education are social actors who retain the orientations of
their specific position in a society. It is for these reasons that education is
controlled by the dominant groups of society who lay down the priorities in
a society. Education is an independent factor in society only to the extent
that its organizational forms provide buffer from direct control from the outside
and to some extent that the effect of education cannot be planned or
anticipated. In essence, education has a bearing on social concerns; educational
change follows social change. More importantly, education conditions
development, but is itself a product of prior social and economic changes in
society. It is an independent factor i n social and economic development
generating intended and unintended consequences and conflicts of values and
goals. Naturally the relations between education and developments are not
mutually exclusive.
Education can be planned to produce social change. We know, for example,
that literacy does stimulate economic and social development. Large-scale
Education, Social literacy programmes are important tools in the development of many countries.
and Institutions Yet, education is permeated by the existing social structure, which limits the
extent of planned change and often produces consequences unintended by
the educational planners. Educational innovation is more likely to produce a
desired change i f innovation in education is co-coordinated with changing
other parts of the social structure. This is to say that effective planning
cannot be piecemeal. An illustration of what this implies is given by current
attempts to improve elementary educatiog, which are carried out by increasing
facilities, the numbers of teachers and offering financial incentives to families.
The intention is to effect a planned change in educational standards, which
has positive consequences for social and economic development. The planned
educational change is usually not coordinated with changing the social context
that has depressed educational standards. In most developing countries, there
is an enormous unsatisfied demand for education because it is perceived as
the gateway to an improved social position. The outcome is the rise in the
number of literate people in society for whom few jobs available. In its turn,
the fact that there are few opportunities in many of these societies for
occupational and social mobility through education discourages the poor people
from obtaining education. Because the poor people have for so long been
outside the decision making process in their countries they do not feel part
of the society. They are not likely to value the goals of developinent that have
never brought them benefits. Consequently, parents are not motivated enough
to encourage their children to seek basic education or undertake higher studies.
Children do not see any real material benefits that education brings. Educational
change in such societies cannot proceed effectively without changing other
aspects of their social structure.
Where education is a condition of social and economic change, it is more likely
to produce intended consequences. This happens because educational change
follows other changes in society; the social context is thus favourable to social
change. We must remember that even when the above warnings are taken
into account the best laid plans of people are likely to go astray. Unintended
consequences always emerge because we cannot estimate the precise
relationship between the many components of change. The study of unintended
consequences i s thus an important and continuing part of the sociologist's
contribution to understanding and planning social change. This is not to say
that unintended consequences essentially challenge social and economic
development.
The contribution of education t o development is thus dynamic and
multifaceted. Partly because they are organized, educational systems are able
to secure some of their intended aims even when they come into conflict
with the aims of those who control society. Given the length and complexity
of the educational process, it is impossible for outside authorities to exercise
a sufficiently detailed control to plug the infusion of undesirable ideas or
information. Further, the length of an individual's exposure to education and
the centrality of educational qualifications for jobs in modern society make
education a crucial sector for bringing about planned social change. Also, the
unintended consequences and conflicts that arise in the educational process
are important and unplanned sources of change in all societies. At the most ,
basic level, they allow a large numbers of people the time to think and to read
with relative freedom from the constraints of job, family or government and
ensure a constant critical re-examination of society.

Reflection and Action 9.2

Speak to at least five elderly people and find out how, in their opinion,
education brings about social change.

Let us now look at the relationship between education and a few other
118 indicators of social change.
a) Education and Economic Development Education and Social

There has long been a widespread understanding i n academic and government

circles that education i s the main determinant of economic growth. Especially,
in the post-World War II period, the relationship of education to economic
development received serious attention in national and international forums.
Education was conceived as one of the more important factors i n economic
growth. This belief also provided a justificati0.n for the massive expansion of
education and allocation of large funds for the education sector. I t was soon
discovered that education only strengthened old inequalities and created new
ones, on the one hand, and perpetuated the existing outdated internal politico-
economic power structures on the other. This means that the causes of
underdevelopment lie in structural factors and not so much i n educational
backwardness.

Education was thought to be the main instrument of social change, especially

cultural rather than structural chahge in the social sphere. Education, it was
realized, by and large works to maintain the existent social situation and
support the ideas and values of the privileged social classes and their economic,
social and political interests. To reiterate, it seems that however imperative
it i s for the educational process to keep pace with the demands made by
economic and technical development on the labour force, there is a very real
sense in which educational expansion i s a consequence rather than a cause
of economic development. I t may also be argued that to concentrate upon the
relationships between education and occupation is to overlook the significance
of changes in attitudes and values. From this point of view, education is seen
as introducing the developing society to new needs and expectations. In
short, education helps to wean the developing society away from the old and
lead towards the new social order, it inspires a belief in progress, in efficiency,
in achievement and in rationality. At the same time, education may be seen
as creating the conditions for political as well as economic development by
laying the foundations of a democratic form of government.

b) Education and Democracy

It is believed that the higher the education level of a country, the more likely
i s it to be a democracy. Within countries, moreover, there is an even stronger
relationship between education and democratic attitudes. Lipset's (1960)
studies show that the higher one's education, the more likely one is to believe
in democratic values and support democratic practices. At the same time
there is evidence to suggest that there is no necessary connection between
education and democracy. World War II Germany and Japan were examples of
nations, which combined a high level of literacy with a totalitarian form of
government. China is still another example, with a high literacy rate but a
communist form of government. The content of education is a significant
factor in this context. Most totalitarian regimes attempt to use their schools
to inculcate conformity and submissiveness and uncritical loyalty to the state.
In the Soviet Union, for example, the emphasis in schools had been on the
indoctrination of conformity and obedience as also i n love for the Soviet
system. The atmosphere was pervaded with a spirit of discipline and hierarchy.
Teachers were warned not to coax students but to demand obedience, for
only in this way would students develop the desired moral qualities. The
influence of education upon political attitudes is much more complex than has
sometimes been supposed, and although it maybe correct to argue that a high
level of education i s necessary for effective participation in democratic
government, there is no guarantee that education and democratic attitudes
are necessarily related.
Education, Social
Processes and Institutions Box 9.1: Democratic Ideal of Education
"It i s not enough to see to it that education i s not actively used as an
instrument to make easier the exploitation of one class by another. School
facilities must be secured of such amplitude and efficiency as will in fact
and not simply i n name discount the effects of economic inequalities, and
secure to all the wards of the nation equality of equipment for their
future careers. Accomplishment of this end demands not only adequate
administrative provision of school facilities, and such supplementation of
family resources as will enable youth to take advantage of them, but also
such modification of traditional ideals of culture, traditional subjects of
study and traditional methods of teaching and discipline as will retain all
the youth under educational influences until they are equipped to be
masters of their own economic and social careers. The ideal may seem
remote of execution, but the democratic ideal of education is a farcical
yet tragic delusion except as the ideal more and more dominates our
public system of education" (Dewey 1976:98).

9.5 Education and Social Change in India

One of the dominant themes i n educational reforms in both the 19thand 20th
centuries has been the extension of educational opportunities to wider sections
of the community. In generat, this has taken the form of free schooling,
scholarships and maintenance of grants for needy students, with the objective
of providing equal education opportunity for all classes in the community.
However, the provision of formal equality does little to eliminate educational
privilege. Whatever changes we make i n our selection mechanisms, or i n the
scope of our educational provision, many children because of their family
background are unable to take advantage of the opportunities. Accordingly,
attention is now being turned not simply to the removal of formal barriers to
equality, but t o the provision of special privileges for those who would
otherwise be handicapped i n terms of educational achievement.
Such provision is not new. The fact that a hungry child cannot learn was
officially recognized at the beginning of the last century. The provision of
schoo! milk and meals and school health facilities became the established
features of the British education scene. Yet it has taken a long time to see
beyond the purely physical needs and to grasp the concept of what has come
to be understood as, 'cultural deprivation.' Moreover, although the idea of
equal educational provision for all classes i n the community is now accepted,
it has by no means been translated into everyday practice. Even today children
from slum homes are all too often educated i n slum schools that are quite
untypical of schools elsewhere. Yet increasingly, it is being believed that for
these children, even equality is not enough. Therefore, the need for positive
discrimination was emphasized in favour of slum schools. It is argued that
schools i n deprived areas should be given priority i n many respects -raise the
standard of schooling and infrastructural facilities. The justification is that the
homes and neighbourhood from which many of the children come provide
little scope and stimulus for learning. The schools must provide an environment
that compensates for the deprivation. Some people argue that compensatory
education cannot i n itself solve problems of health, housing and discrimination
and that these must be tackled by agencies outside school. None of these
arguments attack compensatory education. While acknowledging that formal
equality of opportunity is an inadequate basis for an egalitarian policy,
underline the interdependence of education with other aspects of the social
structure.
 Education and Social
Box 9.2: Education and the Disprivileged Change
"To the extent the previously disprivileged are brought withln the ambit
of institutionalized education there are three modalities of articulation'
between the system of privileges and the education system: (a) education
reproduces and perpetuates inequalities between -the privileged and the
disprivileged, or (b) education enables a part of the disprivileged to attain
upward social mobility without affecting privileges as a system, or (c)
education plays an adversial and even subversive role, challenging privileges
or inequality as a system. The first mode preserves homeostasis, the second
subverses, homeostasis through co-optation of the upward mobile, the
third proposes metastasis or a subversion of the regime of privileges"
(Bhattacharya 2002: 19).

Kamat (1985) conceptualized the relationship between education and social

change in India in three stages. In the first stage, he talks about the early
British period to the end of the 19thcentury. In this period, the colonial socio-
economic and political structure was established i n India. However it also
played a kind of liberating role i n breaking down traditional norms and values,
which were in consonance with the older feudal, socio-economic politic and
were a hindrance to itself. It also sowed the seeds of new norms and values
-of a bourgeoisie society and modern nationalism. This liberating influence
was inteinalized and worked i n two directions:

i) Towards a close scrutiny of the indigenous social systems and culture

leading topowerful movements of social and religious reform and protests
movements l,ike Satya Shodak Samaj

ii) Towards the process of self-discovery, self-assessment i n the context of

the new situation, leading to the creation of an alternative center of
social cohesion, the anti-imperialist movement for national liberation.

In the period between the two world wars, education assumed a mass character.
Occupational and social mobility occurred among segments of population that
were hitherto unnoticed. So far education had spread mainly t o t h e upper
caste and urban upper strata in society. Now it began to percolate to sections
lower in the social hierarchy, the middle castes and middle strata. This carried
the process of nationalism and social awakening s t i l l further, to the working
class in the towns and to the peasantry i n the countryside. The process
considerably strengthened the movement for national liberation as well as the
movement for social change. Meanwhile, the growth of the colonial system of
education was developing serious contradictions within itself and also vis-b-
vis the colonial socio-economic structure. This provided added edge to the
principal contradiction between the British imperialism and the Indian people.
This contradiction was reflected i n large-scale unemployment among the
educated on the one hand and the liberating influence i n the strength and
militancy of the powerful student and youth movement or the.other.

In the third stage, i.e. from post-Independence period up t o the mid-sixties,

the process of social and political awakening has taken further strides. Its two
aspects, conformity and liberation, are also operating. At the same time, the
contradiction within the education system i.e., in relation the development,
socio-economic structure have also sharpened.

9.6 Conclusion
According ' t o Olive Banks (1968)) the precise relationship of the education
system t'o social and economic change is extremely complex and it is almost
impossible t o draw conclusions that are not misleading. The concept of
education as producing or impeding social change is enormously complicated 121
Education, Social by the fact that the education system i s a part of the society, which i s itself
Processesand Institutions changing. Consequently the real issue is that of the inter-relationship between
educational institutions and other aspects of the society. Moreover, it i s this
inter-relationship which makes it so difficult to use the educational system to
produce conscious or planned social change. The education system cannot be
seen in isolation from i t s social context. The realization that educational
reform is not a universal panacea should not, however, lead us to minimize the
importance of knowledge about the educational institutions in society. This
simply means that the relationship between education and social change is
very complex and no simple generalizations can be drawn regarding them.

9.7 Further Reading

Moore, W.E, 1963. Social Change. Prentice-Hall

Banks, O., 1968. The Sociology of Education: Reader in Sociology. London:

Batsford

Dewey, J. 1976. Democracy and Education. New Delhi: Light and Life Publishers
 UNIT 3 DEPENDENCY THEORY
Structure
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Dependency Theory of Development
3.3 Approaches to Dependency
3.4 Criticisms of Dependency Theory
3.5 Let Us Sum Up
3.6 References and Suggested Readings
3.7 Check Your Progress - Possible Answers

3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier two units, you read classical and Marxian theories of development.
In this unit, you will study the dependency theory of development. Dependency
theory is a body of social science theories. It contends that resources flow from
a periphery of poor and underdeveloped states to a core of wealthy states,
enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of
dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich states are enriched,
by the way poor states are integrated into the world system. In the next unit, you
will be reading the Gandhian theory of development, which is based on Gandhian
thoughts.

I
After studying this unit, you should be able to:
explain the dependency theory of development, and the basic characteristics
of a dependent economy;
distinguish between the Marxian and non Marxian approaches of deperrdency
theory; and
narrate criticisms of dependency theory.

3.2 THE DEPENDENCY THEORY OF

DEVELOPMENT
Our discussion on the dependency theory of development is comprised of
the characteristics of a dependent economy, approaches to dependency, and
criticisms of dependency theory. Dependency theory evolved around 1950 as
a reaction to some earlier theories of development. Dependency theory was
I popular in the 1960s and 1970s as a criticism of modernization theory. The
i main propounders of dependency theory are: Prebisch, Singer, Paul Baran,
Paul Sweezy, C. Furtado, F H Cardoso, Gunnar Myrdal, A Gunder Frank,
I
Girvan, and Bill Warren. Many of these scholars focused their attention on
Latin America. The leading dependency theorist in the Islamic world is the
It Egyptian economist, Sarnir Amin.
I
Earlier theories held that all societies progress through similar stages of
I development. They say that at some time in the past, today's developed areas 39
Theories of Development were in a situation that is similar to that faced by today's underdeveloped areas.
Therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to
accelerate them along the supposed common path of development by various
means, such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the
world market. Dependency theory rejected this idea, arguing that underdeveloped"
countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries; rather they
have unique features and structures of their own. They are weaker members in
a world market economy and the developed nations were never in an analogous
position. They never had to exist under the patronage of more powerful countries
than themselves. Dependency theorists argued, in opposition to free market
economists, that underdeveloped countries needed to reduce their connectedness
with the world market so that they might pursue their own path, more in keeping
with their own needs, and less dictated by external pressures.
Hans Singer and Raul Prebisch, the prominent dependency theorists, observed
that the terms of trade for underdeveloped countries, relative to the developed
countries, had deteriorated over time. The underdeveloped countries were
able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from the developed
countries in exchange for a given quantity of their raw materials exports.
This idea is known as the Singer-Prebisch thesis. Prebisch, an Argentinian
economist at the United Nations Commission for Latin America (UNCLA),
went on to conclude that the underdeveloped nations must employ some
degree of protectionism in trade if they were to enter a self-sustaining
development path. He argued that import substitution industrialization (ISI),
but not a trade-and-export orientation, is the best strategy for underdeveloped
countries.
The advocates of dependency theory believe that the theories of Smith,
Ricardo, and the other European classical economists are not suitable to an
analysis of the dualistic dependent structure of many nations such as Brazil,
Mexico, and India. According to the dependency theorists, the less developed
countries are to be understood as part of the global process. Their fate is
merely to provide inputs for advanced nations. They provide low wage
manufacturing under adverse terms of trade. Dependency analysis was built
on the ideas of structuralists, more specifically, on the distinction between
centre and the periphery made by Prebisch. The centre is viewed as the
cause, and the periphery as the effect. Dependency theory found the causes
for the lack of development to be external to the socioeconomic formations
of the LDCs (Less Developed Countries). It does not treat dysfunctional a
institutions of the LDCs as the cause of backwardness. Internal institutional
structures such as corruption levels, unproductive land holdings, concentration
of wealth, and unresponsive political systems are never considered the causes
of underdevelopment. Many dependency theorists advocate social revolution
as an effective means to reduce economic disparities in the world system.
The basic premises of dependency theory are

i) Poor nations provide natural resources and cheap labor. They are export I
destinations for obsolete technology and for markets for the wealthy
nations, without which, the latter could not have the standard of living
they enjoy. Poor natiol ,a e at a disadvantage in their market interactions
i
 Wealthy nations actively perpetuate a state of dependence by various means.
I n
This influence may be mult&mted, involving economics,media control, politics,
Dependency Theory

banking and finance, education, culture, sport, and all aspects of human
resource development, including the recruitment and training of workers.

Gi) Wealthy nations actively counter all attempts made by dependent nations to
resist their influences by means of economic sanctions, and, possibly, by the
use of military force. The poverty of the countries in the periphery is not
because they are not integrated into the world system, or not fully integrated
as is often argued by free market economists, but because of how they are
integrated into the system.

The Characteristics of Dependent Economy

After knowing the fimdarnentals of dependency theory, let us now discuss the
characteristicsof a dependent economy. Dependency is said to have been created
with the industrial revolution, with the expansion of European empires around the
world, and due to the superior military power and accumulated wealth of these
empires. Some argued that before this expansion, the exploitation was internal,
with the major economic centers dominating the rest of the country. The
establishment of global trade patterns in the nineteenth century, allowed capitalism
to spread globally. The wealthy became more isolated from the poor, because
they gained disproportionately from imperialistic practices. This control ensures
that all profits in less developed countries are remitted to the developed nations.
It prevents domestic reinvestment, causing capital flight and, thus, it hinders
economic growth.
The underlying conditions for dependency of any country are as follow:

exporting firms are primarily owned by foreigners 1

iQ exports are dominated by one, or a few commodities

iii) the export sector dominates the economy, and imports are larger in relation
I
to GDP

iv) mineral and petroleum products are produced under conditions of vertical
integration.
The characteristics of a dependent economy are as follows

9 economic growth is not self activating

iQ profits are normally repatriated, but not reinvested

the production of export industries is dependent on imported inputs

iv) income, employment, and growth are determined by

a) the prices and the demand conditions of international market

b) the willingness of transnational corporation to invest

v) income, employment and growth are conditioned by

a) changes in the prices and types of imports

Theories of Develepment b) economic fluctuation abroad

c) changes in taste and fashion

d) changes in technologically created substitutes
vii backward and forward linkages of export activities are very rare
vii) foreign capital, foreign technology, and management are dominant economic
actors.
According to Vernengo (2004), the sine qua non of the dependency relationship
is not the Merence in technological sophistication as tditional dependencytheorists
believe. It is the difference in financial strengths between core and peripheral
countries. In fact, the peripheral countries are incapable of bornwing in their own
currencies.
So far, you have read about the dependency theory of development and the
characteristics of dependent economy. Now, answer the following questions
given in Check Your Progress 1 .
Check Your Progress 1
Note: a) Write your answer in about 50 words.
b) Check your answers with possible answers given at the end of
the unit.
1) What are the characteristics of a dependent economy?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Explain the basic premise of dependency theory.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3.3 APPROACHES TO DEPENDENCY
There are two main streams in dependency theory: The Structuralist stream,
typified by the works of Prebisch, and Furtado; and the Marxist stream,
developed by Baran, Sweezy, and Frank.Thus, two approaches are developed
by two classes of economists.
They are
i) the Marxian theory of dependency
ii) the Structuralist theory of dependency
42
The Marxian Theory of Dependency Dependency Theory

This theory was developed from a Mmian perspective by Paul Baran in 1957
and is detailed in his book, The Political Economy of Growth. Dependency
theory shares many points with earlier Marxist theories of imperialism. It continues
to attract interest from Marxists. Celso Furtado of Brazil was one of the first
economists to use the term 'dependency' and to argue that development and
underdevelopment are two aspects of one economic structure. Both Keynes and
Myrdal greatly influenced his thinking concerning the link between the economy
and power, the crucial role of the state, and the ways in which the international
economy influenced, or constrained, the development process of national
economies. ARer a political coup in 1964, Brazil strictly followed the development
strategy of industrialization which generated a social exclusion process in the
country. According to Furtado, however, development should be a social pmcess.
So, he argued for the necessity of incorporating Brazil's vast population of poor
workers, farmers, and marginalized people into a process of inclusive social
development. In his view, industrialization can unleash new social forces
and pressures which bring about a process of inclusive social development.
Being the head of National Bank of Brazil, Furtado focused on the northeast
region and observed that the income gap between poor f m e r s and those
residing in Sao Paul was greater than the income gap between the average
income in Sao Paul and Europe in the 1950s. He created SUDENE
(Superintendency for the Development of the Northeast), a Brazilian
government agency created in 1959, which was designed to promote industrial
development and land reform in the northeast region to counteract 'internal
colonialism', as manifested in the exclusion of the northeast from Brazil's
economic growth. According to Furtado, the northeast faced falling terms of
trade for its commodity exports, and falling terms of trade in relation to its
income earnings on the industrial goods bought from Sao Paul and Rio.
Development and underdevelopment are one totality constantly produced
within the structure of the economy. He maintained that there was a necessary
link between FDI-led growth and rising internal inequality. To overcome
dependence, the underdeveloped nations would have to create their own
economic plans.
Marx believed that capitalism is characterized by creative destruction. It has
two effects: destruction, and regeneration. Paul Baran emphasized the
destruction side of capitalism in underdeveloped countries. He did not find
evidence of regeneration. Rather, the monopoly capitalism of the twentieth
century, unlike the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century, had a
vested interest in maintaining backwardness and dependence in the periphery.
Baran's analytical contribution led to the flowering of the pessimistic and
stagnationist school of dependency in Latin America and Africa. Baran's
favourite example of the destructive effects of capitalism was that of India.
He found that Indian social scientists, having experienced British imperialism,
had developed concepts very similar to the dependency theorists of the late
nineteenth century.
Baran's theoretical point of departure was an analysis of economic surplus.
He defined economic surplus as the mass of resources (actual and potential)
which a society could have at its disposal, in order to facilitate economic
growth. It is the amount that might be reinvested in productive ways to
Theories of Development increase the future level of social output. This surplus is the residual from total
income after society's basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, and human
companionship have been met. But, this surplus may be grossly misused. It
may be utilized to erect sumptuous and multiple residences for the rich, or
it may be wasted through a variety of ways of conspicuous consumption.
The military, or the church may make tremendous.demands on the surplus,
or it may be drained away by foreign power via plunder, or, by simple profit
repatriation as a result of foreign control over less developed countries. The
historical analysis made by Baran makes it clear that the sources of poverty
of less developed countries are found in the extraction of this surplus under
colonialism. Thus, colonialism blocked the potential for change. Backwardness
and poverty is perpetuated in these regions. According to him, the oppression
of the feudal lords was ruthless, but tempered by tradition. It was further
worsened by the domination of both foreign and domestic capitalists.
According to dependency theory, the exploitation of the people is multiplied
because the oppression and violence inherited from the feudal past is
combined with the rationality and intelligent rapacity of the capitalists. The
fruits of capitalism were not to raise productive wealth in many countries
such as India. These fruits went abroad and served to support a parasitic
bourgeoisie at home. People lived in abysmal misery, and they had no prospect
of a better future. Poverty and underdevelopment continued. They lost their
time honoured means of livelihoods, their arts and crafts. There was no
modern industry to provide new ones in their place. They were thrust into
extensive contact with the advanced science of the west, yet they remained
in a state of darkest backwardness.
By reviewing the history of colonialism, Baran made the following conclusions

i) profit margins fall due to the workers demand for higher wages
ii) foreign capital becomes the targeted source of increasing state revenue
(by imposing higher taxes and higher royalty payments, for example)
iii) foreign exchange control is imposed to curb the funds flowing out of
the country as repatriated profits
iv) tariffs on imported wage goods are imposed to protect domestic
manufacturing.
Theoretically speaking, the state could break this deadlock by opting for new
programmes that-wouldmake import substitution industrialization (ISI) more
successful and dynamic. But the state, in the backward regions, is incapable
of making the decisions needed to move forward on any front of development
ladder. Baran argued that political revolution is necessary to break this pattern.
He argued that by following the capitalistic route, these countries are not
expected to achieve Rostow's stage of 'high mass consumption'. Instead,
these countries would head towards their economic and social graveyards.
Thus, by following the socialistic route, the less developed countries could
reasonably expect some relief from poverty.
The Structuralist Theory of Dependency
There is a group of structuralist dependency theorists who are not Marxians.
They reject the perspective of stagnation. Amongst them, the most reputed
 I
I
writer was Fernando Henerique Cardoso, an active Brazilian sociologist and
economist of international repute. He argued that nations on the periphery suffer
Dependency Theory

from a type of 'peripheral capitalism'. One of the important features of these

economies is economic stagnation, or, in the words of Andre Gunder Frank, an
eminent dependency writer, 'development of underdevelopment'. Cardoso says
that the dependent countries are not stagnant. The societies and economies of the
periphery are continuously evolving. There are three major stages in the economic
history of LDCs.
The first is the agro-export stage of the colonial period, when economic dualism
was prevalent. During this stage, precapitalist sectors of artisans, petty producers,
and peasant producers accounted for the bulk of economic activity. At this stage,
r some sectors, such as precious metals, minerals, and tropical products are integrated
with the world market. The production of these exportables takes place in modem
C and semi-capitalist enclaves.

1 The second is the stage of developmentalist alliances. After the Second World
War, some LDCs experienced major transformation through import substitution
industrialization (ISI). In this stage, a new social structure of accumulation is
1 created which is based on the collective interest of industrial workers, peasants,
and capitalists.
The third is a corporatist regime stage, where there are drastic curbs on democracy,
unions, universities, and other areas of society where dissent might be encountad.
The populist orientation of the second stage (in which social security, minimum
wage legislation, public health care, and public education are expanded) is broken.
1 There are drastic cuts in the state's budget for public services. Above all the
! TNCs (transnational corporations) are welcomed. They become pivotal in the
new process of accumulation, and are central to the growth process.
According to the structuralists, one should not be surprised at some economic
progress, nor should one think LDCs are powerless to shape their destiny.
The third stage is not immutable either. There is no continuous stagnation.
Under this new regime in which the authoritarian state and TNCs cooperate,
I
some economic growth and development does occur. The TNCs keep costs
down in the era of global competition. GDP rises, and even the standards of
living of the masses may improve. There is a new process of capital
accumulation which Cardoso terms 'associated dependent development'.
Cardoso rejects the possibility of a political shift towards a revolution in
t these countries, during this stage. As the economic growth created by the
new alliance between domestic capital and TNCs progress, some new
possibilities for the working class, the techno-bureaucracy and the state open
? UP.
The paradox is that the actual dependence of Caribbean countries became
i much more acute in the 1980s and 1990s. The heightened foreign indebtedness
increased the economic vulnerability of these LDCs. It exposed them to
pervasive external intrusions into domestic policy making in the form of
conditionalities imposed by the Washington based international financial
institutions, and bilateral donors. The establishment of WTO, in 1994,
significantly constricted the policy space previously available to developing
countries. National development, which was an accepted objective in the era
of decolonization, was been replaced by the mantra of global integration.
The new dependency associated with globalization is presented as 45
 I
Theories of Development interdependence in an effort to conceal the asymmetries. Thus, the wheel has
come full circle from the 1960s. According to Girvan, this new orthodoxy calls
for renewed critical analysis from an updated dependency perspective.
1
These non industrialized countries are caught in a post colonial torpor. They
continue to specialize in one, or a few raw material exports. These nations
are described as dependent economies stuck on the periphery of progress.
The centre- periphery relationship results in a dependent development pattern.
They seemed incapable of autonomously altering their economic structures.
This is characterized by the alliance of international and local capital. The
state also joins this alliance as an active partner. The resulting triple alliance
is a fundamental factor in the emergence of "updated dependent development".
According to the non Marxist version of dependency theory, a dependent
system
i) fosters financial /technological penetration by developed capitalist
countries
ii) produces an unbalanced economic structure, both, within the peripheral
societies, and between them, and the centers

I iii) leads to limitations on self sustained growth in the periphery

I iv) favours structural imbalance and specific patterns of class relations

I
I v) requires modifications in the state's role. I
I Thus, the main characteristics of a dependent economic system are 1
t

I i) the regression in both, agriculture and small scale industry i

ii) the concentration of activities in export oriented agriculture andfor

mining.
iii) a rapidly growing tertiary sector, with hidden unemployment
iv) chronic current account balance deficits
I v) structural imbalances in political and social relationships
vi) the comprador element and rising importance of state capitalism and
indebtedness

I vii) strong and self-repeating ups and downs, called business cycles
Many economists argue that political independence is sufficient to thwart all
the impediments to social and economic progress. It gradually removes all
barriers to development. The spread of capitalist methods of production
sweeps away outmoded institutions and structures. Both, the advanced nations
and the LDCs will grow. So a dependency relationship is not a zero sum
game. Warren argues that capitalism sweeping into LDCs at a rapid rate
brings an incomparably higher standard of living to the masses than any
previous socioeconomic system. Warren's brash analysis has been overtaken
by the facts of LDCs. The durability of retarding factors disturbed dependency
economists. Therefore, many dependency theorists argue that becoming
developed requires right decisions and proper policies. It does not just happen
to a country, like manna from hWaven,or, just as a consequence of the spread
of capitalism. Thus, the economic growth of these LDCs is only possible by
adopting appropriate economic policies.
46
 Dependency Theory
3.4 CRITICISMS OF DEPENDENCY THEORY
Some free market economists, such as Peter Bauer and Martin Wolf, write
primarily for non economists. They argue against the path of dependency
theorists. Autonomous path of periphery countries leads to higher corruption,
domestic opportunity costs, lack of competition and sustainability in these
countries. By late 1970s, a chorus of voice dissented against dependence
theory.
The arguments of dependency theorists are criticized as follows
i) The countries on the periphery of development are not destined to
stagnation. So, dependency theory is an incomplete and inaccurate
description of the socioeconomic conditions of LDCs.
ii) There are many dependent countries on the periphery. They do change
their economic structure. According to Prof Warren, they have achieved
very rapid economic growth.
iii. This theory does not highlight how the countries that follow a dependent
development pattern suffer from a variety of economic ills, such as
regressive income distribution, an emphasis on luxury goods,
underutilization and exploitation of human resources, over reliance of
foreign f m s for capital intensive technology, and the perennial problems
of poverty and unemployment.
iv) This theory has no relevance to many nations which are neither in the
periphery, nor in the centre. They are called semi periphery countries.
v) One need not accept dependency as a necessarily zero sum game in
which the periphery loses, and the centre gains. The dependency condition
provides opportunities for a win-win game, in which both developed
countries and LDCs gain from each other.
vi) With the economic growth of India and East Asian economies,
dependency theory has lost its validity. It is more widely accepted in
disciplines such as history and anthropology.
So far, you have read about the various approaches to dependency and the
criticisms of dependency theory. Now, answer the following questions given
in Check Your Progress 2.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: a) Write your answer in about 50 words.
b) Check your answers with possible answers given at the end of
the unit.
1) What are the main stages in economic history of LDC?
Theories of Development 2) Write two important criticisms of dependency theory.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

3.5 LET US SUM UP

At the outset, you studied the dependency theory of development. It covers the
meaning and characteristics of a dependent economy. We studied the Marxian
and the Structuralist theory of dependency in detail. Fina!ly, we discussed the
criticisms of dependency theory of development.

3.6 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Amin, S. (1976), Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations
of Peripheral Capitalism, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Baran, P. (1957), The Political Economy of Growth, New York.
Cardoso, F.H. and Enzo Faletto (1979), Dependency and Development in
Latin America, Berkeley CA, California University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2003), Chomslcy or? Democracy & Education, Routledge.
Frank, A.G. (2005), 'Dependency theory & Capitalism', Canadian Dimension,
Nov.
Friedman, M. (2002), Capitalism and freedom, The University of Chicago.
Furtado, C. (2005), 'Pioneer of Structural Development Theory', Development
and Change ,Vo1.6: 1201-7.
Hayek, F. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press.
Jagdish B. (2004), In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press.
Myrdal, G (1970), Challenges of World Poverty, New York, Vintage Books.
Pollin, R. (2003), Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the
Landscape of Global Austerity, New York: Verso.
Prasad, M. (2006), The Politics of Free Markets: The Rise of Neoliberal
economic Policies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2005), The Argumentative Indian, London: Allen Lane.
Stiglitz, J. (2002), Globalization and Its Discontents, W.W. Norton &
Company.
Stiglitz, J. (2006), Muking Globalization Work, Penguin Books.

48
 Dependency
3.7 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS - POSSIBLE

Check Your Progress 1

1) What are the characteristics of dependent economy?

Answer: The dependent economy has the following characteristics

i) the economic growth is not self activating

ii) profits are normally repatriated, but not reinvested

iii) the production of export industries is dependent on imported inputs
iv) income, employment, and growth are determined by
a) the prices and demand conditions of international market

b) the willingness of transnational corporation to invest

v) income, employment, and growth are conditioned by

a) changes in the prices and types of imports
b) economic fluctuation abroad
c) changes in taste and fashion
d) changes in technologically created substitutes
vi) backward and forward linkages of export activities are very rare
vii) foreign capital, foreign technology, and management are dominant
economic actors
Explain the basic premises of dependency theory.
Answer: The basic premises of dependency theory are

i) Poor nations provide natural resources and cheap labor. They are
an export destination for obsolete technology, and for markets for
the wealthy nations without which the latter could not have the
standard of living they enjoy. Poor nations are at a disadvantage in
their market interactions with wealthy nations.

ii) Wealthy nations actively perpetuate a state of dependence by various

means. This influence may be multifaceted, involving economics,
media control, politics, banking and finance, education, culture,
sport, and all aspects of human resource development, including
recruitment and training of workers.
iii) Wealthy nations actively counter all attempts made by dependent
nations to resist their influences by means of economic sanctions
and, possibly, the use of military force. The poverty of the countries
in the periphery is not because they are not integrated into the
world system, or not 'fully' integrated as is often argued by free
market economists, but because of how they are integrated into the
system.
Theories of Development Check Your Progress 1

1) What are the main stages in economic history of LDC?

Answer: There are three major stages in the economic history of LDCs.
The first is the ago-export stage of the colonial period, when economic
dualism was prevalent. During this stage, precapitalist sectors of artisans,
petty producers, and peasant producers accounted for the bulk of
economic activity. The second is the stage of developmentalist alliances.
In this stage, a new social structure of accumulation is created which is
based on the collective interest of industrial workers, peasants, and
capitalists. The third is a corporatist regime stage, where there are drastic
curbs on democracy, unions, universities, and other areas of society
where dissent might be encountered.

2) Write two important criticisms of dependency theory.

Answer: Two important criticisms of dependency theory are:
i) The countries on the periphery of development are not destined to
stagnation. So, dependency theory is an incomplete and inaccurate
description of the socioeconomic conditions of LDCs.
ii) There are many dependent countries on the periphery. They do
change their economic structure. According to Prof Warren, they
 IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method and research. Science is
also a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding. Modern
science is relatively new having it's origin about 350 years ago. Inspite of it's recent origin it has
made very rapid progress and completely transformed outwardly the manner of our living. But
before that Science was not an organised branch and neither were there any scientists. Instead
there were primitive men who were less evolved and for whom the earth was a big puzzle. He
did not dare to venture to places unknown to him to avoid any mishap. The sun, the moon and
the stars amazed him. These heavenly bodies were held in great reverence. He was helpless and
at the mercy of nature. Hence, he worshipped its forces. But his inquisitive nature made him do
some primitive research. And the invention of the wheel and the discovery of fire were his
achievements. This initiation into the scientific arena was a small step for man but a giant leap
for mankind.

It is because of the scientific knowledge accumulated over the last three centuries, and its
application in the form of technology that our lives have changed outwardly. It didn't change as
much in thousands of years as it has changed since the last one hundred years or so. The impact
of science on society is very visible. Progress in agriculture, medicine and health care,
telecommunications, transportation, computerization and so on, is part of our daily living now.
The goals that had not been generally discussed, largely for lack of intelligent understanding of
the process and its possibilities are very much a reality now. Humans have now the power to
blunt the hardships of existence, from pain and disability and the prolongation of individual life.
Scientific advances have sharpened our perception of future prospects. From time to time we
also see major scientific breakthrough, like the advancements in understanding the genetic code.

The advent of science has altered the life of man. He has been able to venture deep in seas and
discovered new lands. Earth's round shape, it's revolution around around the Sun, laws of
gravitation, electricity, invention of telephone, telex etc. have made him the new master of the
earth. The same earth, from whose power he was afraid. These advancements have shrunk the
world and man is well-connected with far off places. Aero planes, trains, cars, buses and two-
wheelers have become his modes of transportation. These provided him comfort and recreation.
Television, radio, air-conditioner, geyser, oven and room-heater provided for his needs.

The successive discoveries and inventions in the fields of medicine, agriculture, communication
etc. have given the conveniences, comforts and power to humans but in no part of the world are
human beings happy, at peace with themselves, living without violence. The aim of
developments in science were to usher in an era of peace and prosperity. But on the contrary it
has lead to greater violence, sorrow, tension, new diseases, environmental crisis, war to name a
few. On the one hand Science has been a boon to mankind and on the other it has also proved to
be a bane. Moral values are being ignored, the social fabric of the society is breaking up and
environment is in crisis. The same nature which gave him such valuable resources, is now being
abused and ignored. In his pursuit of excellence, man ignored his foresight
Impact of Technology Change

Industrialization:
Technology has contributed to the growth of industries or to the process of industrialization.
Industrialization is a term covering in general terms the growth in a society hitherto mainly
agrarian of modern industry with all its circumstances and problems, economic and social. It
describes in general term the growth of a society in which a major role is played by
manufacturing industry. The industry is characterized by heavy, fixed capital investment in plant
and building by the application of science to industrial techniques and by mainly large-scale
standardized production. The Industrial Revolution of 18th century led to the unprecedented
growth of industries. Industrialization is associated with the factory system of production. The
family has lost its economic importance. The factories have brought down the prices of
commodities, improved their quality and maximized their output. The whole process of
production is mechanized. Consequently the traditional skills have declined and good number of
artisans has lost their work. Huge factories could provide employment opportunities to thousands
of people. Hence men have become workers in a very large number. The process of
industrialization has affected the nature, character and the growth of economy. It has contributed
to the growth of cities or to the process of urbanization.

Urbanization:
In many countries the growth of industries has contributed to the growth of cities. Urbanization
denotes a diffusion of the influence of urban centers to a rural hinterland. Urbanization can be
described as a process of becoming urban moving to cities changing from agriculture to other
pursuits common to cities and corresponding change of behaviour patterns. Hence only when a
large proportion of inhabitants in an area come to cities urbanization is said to occur.
Urbanization has become a world phenomenon today. An unprecedented growth has taken place
not only in the number of great cities but also in their size. As a result of industrialization people
have started moving towards the industrial areas in search of employment. Due to this the
industrial areas developed into towns and cities.

Modernization:
Modernization is a process which indicates the adoption of the modern ways of life and values. It
refers to an attempt on the part of the people particularly those who are custom-bound to adapt
themselves to the present-time, conditions, needs, styles and ways in general. It indicates a
change in people's food habits, dress habits, speaking styles, tastes, choices, preferences, ideas,
values, recreational activities and so on. People in the process of getting themselves modernized
give more importance to science and technology. The scientific and technological inventions
have modernized societies in various countries. They have brought about remarkable changes in
the whole system of social relationship and installed new ideologies in the place of traditional
ones.
Development of the means of transport and communication:
Development of transport and communication has led to the national and international trade on a
large scale. The road transport, the train service, the ships and the aero planes have eased the
movement of men and material goods. Post and telegraph, radio and television, newspapers and
magazines, telephone and wireless and the like have developed a great deal. The space research
and the launching of the satellites for communication purposes have further added to these
developments. They have helped the people belonging to different corners of the nation or the
world to have regular contacts.

Transformation in the economy and the evolution of the new social classes:
The introduction of the factory system of production has turned the agricultural economy into
industrial economy. The industrial or the capitalist economy has divided the social organization
into two predominant classes-the capitalist class and the working class. These two classes are
always at conflict due to mutually opposite interest. In the course of time an intermediary class
called the middle class has evolved.

Unemployment:
The problem of unemployment is a concomitant feature of the rapid technological advancement.
Machines not only provide employment opportunities for men but they also take away the jobs
of men through labor- saving devices. This results in technological unemployment.

Technology and war:

The dangerous effect of technology is evident through the modern mode of warfare. The
weaponry has brought fears and anxieties to the mankind. They can easily destroy the entire
human race reveal how technology could be misused. Thus greater the technological
advancement the more risk for the mankind.

Changes in social institutions:

Technology has profoundly altered our modes of life. Technology has not spared the social
institutions of its effects. The institutions of family, religion, morality, marriage, state, property
have been altered. Modern technology in taking away industry from the household has radically
changed the family organization. Many functions of the family have been taken away by other
agencies. Marriage is losing its sanctity. It is treated as a civil contract than a sacred bond.
Marriages a re becoming more and more unstable. Instances of divorce, desertion and separation
are increasing. Technology has elevated the status of women but it has also contributed to the
stresses and strains in the relations between men and women at home. Religion is losing hold
over the members. People are becoming more secular, rational and scientific but less religious in
their outlook. Inventions and discoveries in science have shaken the foundations of religion. The
function of the state or the field of state activity has been widened. Modern technology have
made the states to perform such functions as -the protection of the aged, the weaker section and
the minorities making provision for education, health care etc.Transportation and communication
inventions are leading to a shift of functions from local government to the central government of
the whole state. The modern inventions have also strengthened nationalism. The modern
governments which rule through the bureaucracy have further impersonalized the human
relations.

Cultural Lag:
To provide a law of social change comparable to the laws of physics and biology that William F.
Ogburn in 1922 advanced his theory of social lag.Ogburn pointed out that social changes always
originate in the invention by some individual of a new way of doing something new to do. So far
he was following in the tradition established by Gabriel Tarde; but Ogburn then began to wander
in the tracks of Marx, Historically, he argued, inventions occur most often in the field of material
technology, if only because the advantages of an improvement in technology are self-evident.
With each development in technology there comes, however, some disturbance to the effective
working of the existing social order. A strain or stress is set up between the new technique and
various organizational aspects of the social system, changes in which come slowly if at all; the
result, disequilibrium between new technology and old social organization, is social lag. The
core of Ogburn's theory is the idea that change first occurs in the material technology.

Social Movements:
Social Movement is one of the major forms of collective behaviour.We hear of various kinds of
social movements launched for one or the other purpose. A social movement can be defined as
collectively acing with some continuity to promote or resist change in the society or group of
which it is a part. Horton and Hunt have defined it as a collective effort to promote or resist
change.Smelser defines it as organized group effort to generate or resist social change.
According to M.S.A Rao social movement includes two characteristics.

Collective Action:
Social Movement involves collective action. However it takes the form of a movement only
when it is sustained for a long time. This collective action need not be formally organized. But it
should be able to create an interest and awakening in relatively large number of people.

Oriented towards social change:

A social movement is generally oriented towards bringing social change. This change could
either be partial or total. Though the movement is aimed at bringing about a change in the values,
norms, ideologies of the existing system, efforts are also made by some other forces to resist the
changes and to maintain the status quo.The counter attempts are normally defensive and
restorative rather than innovative and initiating change. They are normally the organized efforts
of an already established order to maintain itself.
According to Yogendra Singh social movement is a collective mobilization of people in a society
in an organized manner under an individual or collective leadership in order to realize an
ideologically defined social purpose. Social movements are characterized by a specific goal
which has a collective significance ideological interpretation of the collective goal a rank of
committed worker and strong leadership.Social movements have a life-cycle of their own origin,
maturity and culmination.T.K Oomen observe that a study of social movements implies a study
of social structure as movements originate from the contradictions which in turn emanate from
social structure. He states that all social movements centre around three factors- Locality, Issues
and social categories. Anthony Wallace view social movement as an attempt by local population
to change the image or models they have of how their culture operates.
An important component of social movement that distinguishes it from the general category of
collective mobilization is the presence of an ideology. A student strike involves collective
mobilization and is oriented towards change. But in the absence of an ideology a student strike
becomes an isolated event and not a movement. A social movement requires a minimum of
organizational framework to achieve success or at least to maintain the tempo of the movement.
To make the distinction clear between the leaders and followers to make clear the purposes of the
movement to persuade people to take part in it or to support it, to adopt different techniques to
achieve the goals - a social movement must have some amount of organizational frame-work. A
social movement may adopt its own technique or method to achieve its goal. It may follow
peaceful or conflicting, violent or non-violent, compulsive or persuasive, democratic or
undemocratic means or methods to reach its goal.
 Social Classes In India
Introduction

Class as a sociological concept was first explained by Karl Marx. Marxian approach to the
study of class does not give enough scope to explain all types of conflict as it only refers to economic
structure. Social and cultural perspective are equally important to give a holistic picture of class
structure. The concept of class is purposively taken by sociologists to study it from its origin and to
understand it from grassroot level. In Europe class conflicts was concentrated to industry and feudal
Lords which is not the case in India because here a whole lot of other aspects like wealth, power, caste,
occupation and education also becomes important to determine an individual's class position and hence
there are not two but several classes present in Indian society.

Social classes in India as we see them today, had their genesis during the British rule. This
is not to say that the class phenomena was absent in the pre-British Indian society. The class dimension
of Indian society was only less pronounced than it turned out to be during the British period.

Often it is difficult to draw a sharp line where caste principles of stratification seizes and
the class principal begins. Caste and class are two principles of stratification which has persisted in Indian
social system in a dialectical relationship. Studies which throw light on class structure and its processes
in the traditional Indian society revealed that class structure was related to the modes of production
and ownership. Kings, feudal chiefs, traders, artisans, peasants, labourers and the social relationships
among these group assumed significance of understanding the Indian class structure.

Agrarian Class Structure

The British in order to facilitate the economic management to suit their own system
introduced changes in agrarian system in India. The Zamindari, the Ryotwari and the Mahalwari system
were introduced by the British for revenues assessment of land. The Zamindari system had the
Zamindars, tenants and agricultural labourers as the main agrarian classes. The Ryotwari system
consisted of two type segmentation i.e. the landlord and the peasants.

The agrarian class structure everywhere in India had a feudal character; the zamindars
collected taxes and were non-cultivating owners of land, the tenants were the real cultivators often
without security of land.
 Western authors and Indian sociologist studied the Indian agrarian social structure by
adopting different theoretical hashish orientations. AR Desai, Daniel Thorner have used Marxian approach
while studying agrarian relations whereas Louis Dumont used attribution approach. Daniel Thorner argues
that even though there has been land reform measures ,the peasants continue to suffer the most and
the ‘Maliks’ continue to enjoy their dominant position. This relationship to land corresponds to social
relationships as well. The lower caste works as landless labourers for the land owning caste groups who
belong to the upper caste.

PC Joshi highlighted three trends in agrarian class structure and the relationship among them i.e.:

 The declining feudalistic and customary tenancy.

 Increasing importance of commercial tenancy based on the rich and middle state of peasantry.
Decline of feudal landlords and the rise of commercially oriented landlords.
 The socio-economic consequences of these commercial peasants. That, it increased the efficiency
and productivity of agriculture but conflict between the poor peasantry and agricultural labourers
has been on the rise

TK Oommen lists five categories of classes in rural agrarian India:

 landlords
 rich farmers
 middle peasants
 were peasants
 landless agricultural workers.

Agrarian class structure can be studied from three perspectives i.e. liberals, Marxist,Neo
Marxist. Andre Beteille who Is considered to present the liberal point of view with regard to agrarian
class structure has put forward the criteria towards the study of agrarian class structure. These criteria
are:

 ownership.
 Control.
 Use of land.

The big owners of land were living in profit, land for them was a form of industry, they
planned what to produce, they were highly enterprising and kept a constant eye on the market. These
big owners are also known as “Entrepreneurial Landlords” found in green revolution belt of the country.
For these big owners land is a symbol of family pride and is not considered much about profit and many
a times it also happens that these owners live in urban centres. For medium owners or small landlords
land is a family property and just for namesake they keep themselves attached to the property; they
are also known as “Absentee Landlords”. The small owners can't go for self cultivation of land because
of cultural bondage therefore they leave their land to someone who can put it to use for the purpose
it is meant to. These are known as “Cultural Landlords”.

A controller is one who looks after the land in the absence of actual owner. His job is
close to Munshi/Manager who is responsible to the actual owner. One can be owner, controller and user
at the same time. So there exist multiple classes on the basis of intensity of control over land.

The users of land are those agricultural labourers who simply are working on land. They
don't possess any ownership and controlling rights and land is used by them earn livelihood. Therefore
Andre Beteille points out to the fact that multiple kinds of competition and combination exist in Indian
agrarian structure. Different agrarian class is existing in India carries different names, problems and
identity. He finds out that in case of Bengal , land reform systems has expanded the size of small and
marginal farmers who earlier worked on the basis of crop sharing.

Marxist sociologists divided peasants into two types i.e. Conservative and Radical.
Conservative peasants are not practical, non-reflexive, non-adoptive to major changes whereas radical
peasants go for self mobilisation posing a challenge to big landlords. They say that only a revolution can
bring about change in the social structure which can be brought about only when there is majority of
radical peasants.

A R Desai classified the agrarian class structure into three segments i.e. Upper-Class,
Middle-Class, Lower Class. Utsa Pathnaik studied Punjab and Haryana and classified agrarian class
structure as big landlords, rich farmers, middle peasants, small peasants, agricultural labourers. Big
landlords are those who have control over 50 acres or more of land in the green revolution belt. There
were additional source of income from industry and trade and they have derived all the institutionalised
benefits extended to them by the state. The big landlords use mechanical devices to accelerate
agricultural production and they are highly organised and politically active.

The Rich Peasants controlled over 20 to 40 acre of land, they are highly ambitious,
articulating, mostly dependent on hired labourers but at times can also use family labour. The Middle
Peasants have control over 10 to 20 acres of land who mostly use family labour and make little surplus.
They're not very affluent in life as the first two classes. The Small Farmers having control over 5 to 10
acres of land are also identified as marginalised farmers. Agricultural Labourers are those landless
labourers who make wage by working on the land held by others.

She identifies that the first two classes are are mainly controlling the means of
production, modern technology and are rapidly consolidating their base in agrarian India because of the
rise of capitalist agriculture development in the green revolution belt and so the process of polarisation
is becoming more prominent.
Daniel Thorner points out that one should understand class structure keeping in mind three factors:

 what one receives from land.

 The entitlements attached to land.
 Application of labour.

The Neo Marxist scholars considered that agrarian class structure cannot be studied in
isolation to the non-agrarian class structure. They found out that moneylenders, merchants and traders
living in urban centre do have linkages with big landlords of the village. Through these big landlords they
lend money to the marginalised and small farmers during the harvest period. When the harvest is
gathered they procure from small and medium peasants at a cheaper rate and the profit is shared
between them and village landlord. Therefore the upper class is getting consolidated leading to the
exploitation of rural poor who are unorganised, voiceless and therefore they either accept exploitation
and in some cases when they find out that the exploitation has become too much for them to bear
they either go for migration or suicide.

Anand Chakravarty holding the same viewpoint consider that rural poor and landless
labourers are ‘under class’who cannot resist the hegemonistic domination of the landlord, police and
state and legal courts. Therefore they mostly accept inequality or they start a rebellion against it.

The commission on rural employment the 1996 indicated that lower class in agrarian India
has now control over 80% of agrarian land as against 9% during 1991 ,therefore there is minimisation of
class contesting to the Marxist sociologist who advocate that in agrarian India class inequality has been
glorified which is making inequality more prominent thereby creating a distinction between rural rich and
rural poor.

The Liberal sociologists consider that elements of feudalism, semi-feudalism, part

capitalism, full capitalism, nexus between caste and class. The nexus between agrarian and non-agrarian
class is making agrarian class structure highly complex therefore different voice, different concerns and
anxieties are articulated by multiple agrarian classes in rural India therefore we should develop an
agrarian policy keeping in mind the divergent needs and exploitation of agrarian class than enforcing
uniform stereotype agrarian programme for the people in the form of land reform system, green
revolution and of late Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
 Middle classes in India

The concept of middle class explains the debate between Karl Marx and Max Weber. When
Marx considered that middle class is transitory in nature and that it highlights the possibility of
addressable inequality; to its contrast Weber considered that the rise of middle class is a victory of
modernity. In his theory of stratification Weber considered that there has been proliferation of middle
class strata. As a result the possibility of class conflict is substantially minimised in modern society. The
rise of middle class in modern industrial society is also discussed in detail by Talcott Parson in his
analysis of meritocratic society. Various sociologists speak about acceleration middle-class competition
with regard upward and downward mobility in caste and class structure.

Modernist, pluralist, liberals used the concept of middle class to celebrate modern
industrial society where class relationship is competitive and dynamic and class inequalities are not
prominent, polarised and hierarchical. Ordinarily speaking middle class can be identified as a body of
people who are exposed to modern education, Carry rational and competitive value, who are more or less
secularised in their approach aspiring for the mobility, they are a body of consumerist class who consider
that they carry the capacity for social change.

A R Desai is the first Indian sociologist to speak about Indian middle class and their role in
the rise of Indian nationalism. He writes that the platform for the rise of Indian middle class evolved
from out of the caste structure. A large body of non-ritualised, power and wealth conscious middle-
caste group in India offered a direction to the rise of Indian middle class. Subsequently Indian middle
class played a key role in bringing reforms in culture and religion. He considers that social religious
reform movements are middle-class movements in India that question and challenge the upper class,
Sanskritic and ritualistic values.

Desai considers that British played a significant role in the expansion of the size of Indian
middle class. More significantly British introduce printing press, bureaucracy, new kind of land tenure
system, trade, commerce and industry, regular Army, policing systems and educational institutions that
offered employment opportunities to a large body of Indians.These people got exposure to the rational
ideas, democratic values of the Western world and started writing articles in newspapers, developed a
political cause and a political organisation, made a presentation to British administration for different
kinds of concessions and benefits. As a result Indian middle class offered a solid foundation to the rise of
nationalist movement in India.
 He further believed that the members belonging to middle-class came from different
regions and various castes. Thus, middle-class dissolved regional disparities and inter-caste bringing unity
among people of India therefore he concluded that class integrates and caste divides the people of India.

DL Seth in his article middle-class in modern India indicates that Indian middle class may
be the product of British colonial policy but after India's independence the base of Indian middle class
has been constantly expanding. In case of southern and western India large chunk of middle class evolved
from out of social protests and cultural mobilisation. Self-respect movement in case of Tamil Nadu,
Satya Shodak Samaj movement in case of Maharashtra and SNDP movement in Kerala gave way to the
emergence of middle class movement; who wear articulated, non-traditional, anti-Brahmin and demanding
for equity, control over power structure. Unlike West, Indian middle class has grown out of soil.
Therefore middle class in Europe and middle-class differ in terms of their origin and approach. He
further considers that green revolution in different pockets of the country along with cooperative
movements gave rise to the origin of Indian middle class who refuse to detach themselves from
traditional caste, kinship and culture but still intended to extract the benefits from modern
institutions. Therefore Indian middle class is keeping one step on tradition and the other on modernity
and trying to extract benefit from both.

Andre Beteille in the study of Indian middle class questioned the very genesis of Indian
middle class. He considers that middle class in India draw support from different sources at different
points of time therefore Indian middle class is not homogenous like middle-class in the West. He points
out that in case of India many people are technically joining middle-class because agriculture, trade,
commerce has offered economic dividend to the masses in India. Hence the habit of reading newspaper,
going for family vacation, spending money on non-consumption items are constantly increasing but
interrelationship between a factory worker, a small trader and a junior police officer always takes place
in a hierarchical sphere. Therefore Indian middle class has expanded but people still carry hierarchical
ideas that largly influence their interpersonal relationship. Hence modernity in India unlike in West has
not created a self assertive middle-class who can bring in a complete social change. This view is in
contrast to Yogendra Singh’s who considers that modernity has replaced caste by class.

Indian middle class should be studied in time frame from 1950 to 1980s. Industrialisation,
bureaucratization, modern education, green revolution, modern trade led to massive employment report
unity in nonagricultural sectors leading to the expansion of middle-class but these middle-class were more
concerned about consolidation of their economic position than participating in self-assertion or social
protest in a big way. Therefore early middle class in India were mostly self-seeking than being
revolutionary. However middle class offered a solid foundation to the peasant mobilisation in India during
post independent period, a testimony to that is Naxalite Movement which is supported by intellectuals
coming from different spheres of life.
 Anti-emergency movement was initiated by Indian middle class including students, teachers,
lawyers and at times government officers therefore Indian middle class has not always been timid and
non-articulated during the formative stage. After globalisation Indian middle class has expanded its size
and speed of articulation of interests therefore middle class in India has initiated environmental probe,
women issues, civil rights questions resulting in bringing reforms in different spheres of public life.
Therefore activision of Indian middle class strongly corresponds with the rise of civil society in India. This
silent change in contemporary Indian society can be considered as a victory upper-class movement in
India.

Gurusharan Das in his book “India Unbound” , Amartya Sen in his book “Argumentative
Indians” and Abdul Kalam in his book “India 2020” consider that during post liberalisation period the
human resource potential of India is mostly being exported leading to Indian scientist, researchers,
industrialist achieving miracles and receiving global recognition thereby bringing India into the domain of
world community as a rich nation with enough human resource potentials. According to Gurusharan Das
globalisation has offered unbound limit for self expression, mobility, prosperity and happiness. Amartya
Sen indicate that India's success in the field of literacy campaign is an attempt to convert the ideal
man’s power into progressive working population which is the foundation to the creation of knowledge
society. He considers that education is a prerequisite for the rise of knowledge society and India unlike
China is a leader in this Frontier. He expects Indian economy grow to be sustainable because it stands
on a solid knowledge base.

The Institute of Applied Economic and Research in its report indicated that during India's
independence the total percentage of middle class was 12% that increased to 20% during 1951 which
reached the figure of 58% in 2001 and it is expected to reach a target of around 70% by the end of
2020. These presumptions drive the point back that India is going to evolve into a society where the
middle class is expanded, lower class is squeezed and upper class is not hegemonistic. This will make India
more inclusive, highly dynamic and growth oriented society.

But sociologists are skeptical whether India can evolve into such kind of inclusive society
without any caste-class disparity or any other form of inequality. The gender inequality persist in India
both in public and private sphere, hegemonistic domination in rural India, hijacking of modern benefits by
dominant class, distinction between literacy and functional literacy, women exploitation, environmental
degradation etc. are stumbling blocks in the way of building an affluent India dominated by Indian middle
class carrying modern and secular values. This paradox in India is a contest between the pervasive nature
of tradition engaged in dialectics with the emergent nature of modernity. As a result social change in
India is becoming restrictive than being absolute.
 Industrial Class Structure

Under the British rule, production in India became production for market. As a result of
this, internal market expanded and the class of traders got engaged in internal trading. Simultaneously,
India was also linked up with the world market. This led to the growth of class of merchants engaged in
export- import business. Thus there came into being and industrial/commercial middle-class in India.

With the establishment of Railways, the accumulation of savings on part of rich

commercial middle-class larges investment took place in modern industries. Subsequently they also
diversified the sphere of their industrial activity and thus both economically and socially this class
turned out to be the strongest class in India.

With the attainment of independence, emphasis was laid on rapid industrialization of

country. In response to that state was to play a very active role. It evolved economic and industrial
policies, which clearly indicated the role of commercial and industrial class as a catalyst of administration
in India. It also actively assistance is classes towards augmentation of production.

The dominant element in the ruling class combine is the industrial bourgeoisie, which
emerged and grew under the long shadow of British colonialism. Accumulating capital through merchant
and trading activities related to the colonial economy, this class gradually diversified into industrial
activities, beginning with the textile industry in an around colonial Bombay. Significant portions of the
industrial bourgeoisie has been, and continues to be, organized along family lines, with the Tatas and the
Birlas being the most prominent historical examples. Three characteristics of the Indian industrial
bourgeoisie demand further analysis and comment: its attitude towards other elements, especially the
semi-feudal landlords, of the ruling class combine; the evolution of its internal structure and its
relationship with the State; and, its relationship with the center of the global capitalist system.

The Indian bourgeoisie has, because of its historical origins, always had an ambivalent
attitude to the whole gambit of semi-feudal interests in the economy. Even though it hesitantly
supported the nationalist leadership of the Indian National Congress, it was never strong enough to push
for its hegemony either in the nationalist movement or in the post-colonial State. It never fought a
frontal battle with feudal interests, the biggest indicator of which is the half-hearted nature of land
reforms in independent India. As a result, it could neither fashion an independent capitalist development
path for the country based on the home market nor consistently democratize the polity. If the
nationalist struggle for independence is, therefore, understood as the beginning of the bourgeois
democratic revolution in India, then it largely remains unfinished even 60 years after political
independence from British colonialism.
 Even though the Indian bourgeoisie has not initiated and led a broad-based capitalist
development, which could have improved the material conditions of the vast masses of the country, it
has nonetheless managed to significantly widen and deepen the industrial structure of India. Starting
with consumer goods industries like textiles, it has diversified into the production of basic capital and
intermediate goods, and consumer durables. This has been largely possible because of the protection and
patronage of the State, with which this class has had a complex relationship. On the one hand, it has
resisted all attempts at disciplining by the State for larger development programmes; on the other, it
has utilized industrial, tax, credit, export and import policies of the State to further its own narrow
class interests.

At the time of political independence, the industrial structure in India was very
concentrated at the top, with a few large monopoly business houses controlling large swathes of the
market. Three trends have emerged, slowly at first, since then. The first trend has been the
differentiation of the economy into an organized and an unorganized sector, roughly coterminous with
large and small scale industries; policies of the Indian state helped in this differentiation. The second
trend has been the relative growth and proliferation of the small scale sector, i.e., relative to the
large-scale, organized sector. The third trend has been the slow but steady growth of a regional
bourgeoisie, different from and often competing with the established large business houses. Thus,
concentration and centralization of capital has proceeded in several branches of the organized sector; but
this has also been accompanied by increased regional and sectoral competition and growth of the small
scale sector.

Note: For further reading referred to the chapter “In Industrialisation And Urbanisation In India”
 Social Movements In Modern India
Introduction

When we talk about social change two things should be taken into consideration,firstly should
government produce change and secondly should people introduce change themself on their own terms and
conditions. Social desires and demand for change is different from personal desire and demands. Hence both
stands opposite to each other ,for example if the state is glorifying one particular form of religion and
people want to go for change or another religion this will lead to struggle between power of the state and
power of the people. This struggle between the part of state and power of the people can be termed as
social movement.

With the growing consciousness , people are coming forward in large numbers and it has
become difficult for the state to ignore the demand of the people and introduce its own wishes. There is a
dialectical relationship between state and people. Gandhiji introduced different kinds of protest and
encouraged mass movement both in the nature of social and political.

During different points of time in Indian history identity movement have also taken place so
that everyone has a space in society, every individual is free and that they do not to hide their actual
identity in front of others e.g. homosexuals, transgenders.

A protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies

or situations. Protests can take many different forms, from individual statements to mass demonstrations.
Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to
influence public opinion or government policy, or they may undertake direct action in an attempt to
directly enact desired changes themselves. When protests are part of a systematic and peaceful campaign to
achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere
protest and may be better described as cases of civil resistance or nonviolent resistance

Wherever marginalization, exploitation is caused in extreme form it leads to protest which

subsequently transforms itself into a movement through ideological injection e.g. civil rights movement in
America under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln where blacks were united to fight against hunger and
discrimination by the state and people alike.

During the colonial rule, the tribal areas were least interfered with as it was thought that it
is difficult, costly and cumbersome to administer these areas. Hence it was missionaries who landed in those
places to work. But some tribal areas were highly resourceful and so they were highly exploited. Since
independence hardly any major steps are taken for the development people belonging to these areas. Till
today the actual number of tribals existing in India is is not known.
Protestant movements in case of India can be divided into three distinctive stages i.e.:

 Social religious movement which got momentum before freedom struggle.

 Economic and political movement during the freedom struggle.
 Identity and issue-based movement in contemporary India.

Protest is not overreaction of a group of people to the action of others. One goes for
protest because the action of others are not acceptable by them. Protest is always a registration against
the voice of dominance. Protest is reminder to the state that it has limited power. Protest movement will
be maximum in a democratic setup.

The term "collective action" describes the situation in which multiple individuals would all
benefit from a certain action, which, however, has an associated cost making it implausible that anyone
individually can or will undertake and solve it alone. The rational choice is then to undertake this as a
collective action the cost of which is shared.

Collective action can be the foundation to social movement but it is not necessary that
always collective action will be leading to social movement. For instance new social movements are mostly
issue-based like environmental movements, anti-war movements, civil rights movement etc that involve
people from different sections of society asking them to form different kinds of mobilisation. Collective
action is not just the foundation to social movement, it may be having a larger appeal as well. Amartya
Sen says that collective action should be engineered for collective well-being. Participation in many
educational programs, awareness campaigns, electoral policies are examples of collective action for collective
well-being which is instrumental for the rise of an inclusive society.

Sustainable development approach forwarded by Vandana Shiva indicate that joint forest
management scheme, wasteland management, watershed management involve the contesting communities
accelerating collective action for common well-being. In macroscopic plane one finds out collective action is
initiated by all countries of the world in areas of environmental protection, abuse of nuclear power,
humanitarian aids, and political peace. Thus collective action should not only be studied from a single
standpoint which consider it as a tool for class conflict, revolution and social change.

Previously social movements were highly organised, ideologically charged which were asking for
big changes to emancipate the exploited in the hands of the class or state. But social movements today are
more reflexive, reactionary, issue-based and temporal. Thus there is a distinction between social movement
and collective action. Social movement can sustain itself if there are many free riders (people who
participate for their vested selfish interest), however collective action will not be able to arrive at its goal
if there are too many free riders. Therefore participation is very important for the success of
contemporary movements.
Social movements can be distinguished from protest and collective action on the ground that social
movement is programmed but Protest and collective action are not necessarily programmed. The social
movement for its success has to fulfil a number of preconditions like:

 Issues Identification.
 Identification and expansion of support base.
 Creation of structural conduciveness.
 Crystallisation of ideology.
 Evolution of leadership.
 Growth of organisational characteristics.
 Allocation of responsibility.

Social movement passes through different stages which includes excitement stage
(identification of issues), consolidation stage (propaganda and search for mass support), crystallisation stage
(rise of leadership, publication of literature), maturity stage (injection of ideology and allocation of
responsibility), resolution stage (accomplishment of goals and decline of social movement).

When a social movement dies out, it may give rise to a political party or the residues of
social movement will operate as a reminder of past. Social movements can be classified into different types
on the basis of their appeal and capabilities to introduce change like:

 Transformative Movement – that makes some attempt to produce absolute change.

 Radical movement – that makes some attempt to use violent measures to make some changes.
 Restorative movement – which gives importance to the restoration of some values and ideals for the
common well-being of people.
 Reformative movement – which makes an attempt to eliminate non-progressive stereotype ideas and
values from the life of people and searches for progress and happiness.
 Redemptive movement – which makes people to change their opinion about the existential condition
instead of changing the condition.
 Peasants And Farmers Movement
Peasant refers to small producers who are controlling a small piece of family land, using simple
technologies, family labour to gratify their consumption needs. Between man and land there is emotional
relationship in peasants society. To its contrast farmers produce for market and so they view their land
also from economic perspective and so land is a source of profit for them. If land fails to make profit
farmers go for other forms of occupation abandoning agriculture which is not so in case of peasant.
Therefore conceptualising agrarian movement as peasant movements or farmers movement is a great
sociological challenge.

In India there is present multiple modes of production. In some pockets of the country there
are peasants, medium farmers, small and marginalised farmers who do not make a huge margin of profit
from land and landless peasants. In some areas of the country capitalist agriculture has developed which has
led to migration of agricultural workers from the poor regions to these flourishing regions in search of
employment, therefore the conflict between land and agriculture class and landless labourers is potentially
absent in green revolution belt. In some other areas middle farmers have been organised, they have received
support from state and organised cooperatives to improve their economic conditions and so in this case also
the conflict between them and agricultural labourers is mostly unfound. In certain pockets of the country
traditional form of landlordism is present where labourers, marginal farmers are thoroughly exploited and
their control over their own land is becoming fragile and therefore in these areas small, marginalised
,farmers and landless labourers are getting unionised and manifest in protest and armed rebellion.

Therefore multiple modes of agrarian production provides no space for sociologists to explain
agrarian movement in India either as peasant movements or as, movements. Gail Omvedt writes that in
case of India the participants of agrarian movement are tribes, lower caste, ethnic minority who is more or
less were landless since historic times therefore peasant farmer movement cannot be disassociated from
Dalit movement and tribal movements.

Feudal mode of agriculture is still in practice in case of Bihar, MP, Eastern Uttar Pradesh and
certain pockets of Orissa. There is also semifeudal mode of agriculture practised in Rajasthan, Andhra
Pradesh. Semi-capitalist mode of agriculture production can be found in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka and pockets of Andhra Pradesh. And lastly capitalist agriculture mode of production can be found
in Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh.

She considers that in capitalist zone farmers movement get a momentum whereas in feudal
areas peasant movements are accelerated but in semifeudal and semi-capitalist both farmers and peasant
movements are present. Some sociologists consider that movements initiated during India's freedom struggle
should be considered as peasant movement whereas after India's independence the agrarian movement should
be considered as farmers movement. Even A R Desai makes a distinction between two timeframes i.e.
protest during colonial period and protest during postcolonial period. While some sociologist believe that it
is conceptually difficult to distinguish not only peasant movements from farmers but also agrarian
movement form social and religious movements.

In India peasants and farmers movements were initiated as economic organisation highlighting
the questions like landlessness, indebtedness, tenancy rights but subsequently people got unionised forging
their class identity on the basis of culture and religion. Moplah movement, Eka movement and Peasant
Rebellion in case of Bengal vertically divided the people on the basis of culture and religion. This is
contradictory to Marx's understanding of class-action when he says that classes is a source people’s
unification because in case of India peasants belonging to Hindu community supported Hindu landlords in
Bengal rather than joining hands with Muslim peasants.

Peasant Movement During British Period

British introduced the exploitative Land Tenure System with Ryotwari system in western and
southern India and Zamindari system in eastern and northern India. These two distinctive Systems of Land
Tenure System gave way to the rise of feudal Lords, sub feudal Lords, sub sub feudal Lords thereby giving
rise to the evolution of large body of leisure class living on the exportation of peasants in India. British
systematically destroyed indigenous class, cottage industries, transforming artisans into landless peasantry.
Moneylenders, absentee landlords gave rise to capitalist interest in agricultural land leading to massive
exportation of indigenous peasants.

Introduction of exploitative taxation system expose peasantry to exploitative market and

introduction of cash crops completely paralysed subsistence production – forcibly exposing presented to
market without any purchasing power in hand. Therefore peasant in India during colonial period was standing
in between devil and the deep sea i.e. being exploited by the landlords on one hand and by the expandable
market introduced by the colonial leaders on the other. As a result peasant movement got omentum in
different parts of the country in the form of Sanyasi Vidroh, Indigo Movement, Champaran Movement,
Bardoli Movement, Eka Movement, Moplah Rebellion, Birsa Munda Movement.

The above-mentioned movements had two major consequences; firstly forgetting the linguistic
and regional differences ,driven by common interest the entire country got unified together and started
protesting against the British and secondly peasant movement offered platform for the rise of localised
leadership in various parts of the country which became the precursor to the national movement in India
later on. AR Desai considers that peasant movement in India is the mother of India's nationalist movement.
Kisan Sabha Movement:

In the year 1927, Kisan Sabha was formulated a frontal organisation for the peasant of the
country to safeguard their interests and to protect them from the exportation of landlords, moneylenders
and exploitative colonial regime. All the leaders of early peasant movement got associated with Kisan Sabha
movement. This movement introduced Kisan Sabha in every village, stimulating the peasant to control
village land and go for cooperative farming, evict absentee landlord from the land and on many occasions
also promoted militaristic method to eliminate the intermediaries control over the land.

It was realised that peasant movement in India cannot be successful until different class of
peasantry joined hands with each other. As a result many landlords, sub landlords and sub sub landlords
took up leadership of Kisan Sabha movement exhibiting consensual attitude towards peasants and agriculture
farmers. In case of Bardoli the farmers took the lead in Kisan Sabha movement. Rationalisation of rent
payment system was introduced. It was spelt out all over the country that the real exploiters of Indian
peasantry are not local zamindars rather it is exploitative British land tenure system.

Different classes of peasantry joining hands with each other driven by pro-poor socialistic
ideology offered a momentum to this movement. AR Desai considers that this movement is originally
initiated by middle peasants and subsequently received ideological support from middle-class youth and finally
when this movement acquired a nationalistic appeal several peasants joined the movement as a result of
which class movement got converted into mass movement.

The leaders of Kisan Sabha subsequently became leaders of Congress and promised indigenous
farmers/peasants Heaven on Earth after India's independence.

Naxalite Movement:

This movement was started from Siliguri district of West Bengal by Charu Mazumdar who
belonged to upper class affluent family. During that period the state was ruled by Communist Party and
its associate, however the government had not taken serious steps to implement land reform systems in
true spirit. Charu Mazumdar alleged that land distribution amongst landless peasants are unfavourable and
non-productive therefore state as a matter of formality is engaged in land distribution. State is limiting
farmers from encroaching the fertile land owned by the absentee landlord deploying police and using legal
court.

He mobilised 20,000 peasants, gave them training in modern techniques of warfare and asked
them to loot police stations to procure weapons and to attack zamindars, forcibly occupying the land. In
every village gorilla warfare techniques were taught to the youth and village army was trained to fight
against police and private army of the landlords. This forced the state government to expedite land reform
in several state.

Various sociologists consider that naxalite movement should be studied from people's
perspective rather than from State perspective. Masses have appreciated naxalite movement because they
have introduced welfare schemes, educational campaign, cooperative farming. To make naxalites unpopular
state police have demolished many schools, bridges constructed by naxalites therefore naxalite movement
today is a struggle between peoples power state power.

Contemporary Agrarian Movement:

After India's independence peasant movement has gone to the state of oblivion. The factors
responsible for that can be attributed to rural development programme introduced by the state. More
significantly cooperative movement, green revolution in North, Western and South India have weakened
peasant movement. For peasants have got regular employment opportunities in these areas and got access
to market, thus dependency between different classes of peasantry has been accelerated and so instead of
looking at each other as class enemy they have developed compatible working relationship.

Dipankar Gupta indicates that land tenure system has gone through a series of transformation
since India's independence. Division of land as contributed for segmentation of agricultural land, as a result
if the father is big farmer of the and his children are reduced into middle farmers. Relationship between
agriculture workers and the middle and small peasants has become an inclusive relationship driven by
dependency. Agricultural labourers today are supported by the public policy of the State hence they are
mute and accepting exploitation. Thus the intervention and developmental policies have sufficiently
contributed for decline of unrest in India.

Cooperative movements has impacted both small and marginal farmers in India, joining these
cooperatives they have liberated themselves from historical exploitation, gathered self confidence and
improved their quality of life. This view is contradicted by Marxian scholar like Utsa Patnaik who indicates
that during early stage of capitalist economy relationship between the class is bound to be complimentary
but subsequently with the majority of capitalism the inequality between the class becomes absolute. In
contemporary India big cotton growing farmers, cash crop producers and horticulturist are hijacking all
institutionalised benefits in their own favour. There is consolidation of capitalism in Indian agriculture in the
villages of Punjab and Haryana.

Studies have found out the paradox in development in the green revolution belt of the
country where poor farmers are committing suicide and rich farmers are consolidating their economic base.
Bharatiya Kisan Union operating in North India is consolidating its base, mobilising all the cash crop produces
and bargaining with the government to benefit the capitalist agriculturalists.

Taking these diversified opinion into consideration we can conclude that peasant movement in
Indian history were instrumental for India's independence. Those people could not in one tone and in one
spirit and voice asked for their basic civil and economic rights. Peasant Movement in India is fractured and
articulates different concerns in time and space. Therefore Indian peasant movement is unique, exclusive and
is hidden in character. It cannot be equated with peasant movement in other parts of the world.
 Backward Classes And Dalit Movement
Dalit movement is a contemporary phenomena started during freedom struggle has become
forceful today. It got its ideological support from backward class movement which took place in different
parts of the country in the form of self-respect movement in Tamil Nadu, Satya Shodak Samaj movement
in Maharashtra, Yadav movement in North India etc. Backward classes is a very loose concept. Sociologically
these classes consist of a large number of backward castes which remain above schedule caste and below the
upper caste. These casts consist of intermediate caste – the cultivating caste, artisans and service castes.

The Backward castes have been deprived of many social, economic, political and religious
privileges. These people provided manual labor and the untouchables occupied the lowest position among the
caste hierarchy. They were subjected to extreme form of exploitation. The colonial power accentuated the
disparities in the distribution of economic power. The atrocities united the lower castes against the upper
castes. Some of the important backward caste movement which came up was Satyashodak Samaj which
consolidated the masses along the castelines. E.V Ramaswamy started Self-Respect movement against the
Brahmins in South India. The SNDP movement in Kerala was more of a reformist movement. In 1950s
there was a widespread desire among the non-Brahmin castes to be categorized as Backward .Subsequently
Backward Class commission was set up to look into the conditions and requirements of these classes. Mandal
Commission submitted its report in 1980 recommending reservations for backward castes in educational
institutions and government offices.

Self-Respect Movement

The Self-Respect Movement was founded in 1925 by E. V. Ramasamy (also known as Periyar)
in Tamil Nadu. The movement had the aim of achieving a society where backward castes have equal human
rights, and encouraging backward castes to have self-respect in the context of a caste based society that
considered them to be at the lower end of the hierarchy. A number of political parties in Tamil Nadu, such
as Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) owe
their origins to the Self-respect movement. Periyar declared that the Self-Respect Movement alone could
be the genuine freedom movement, and political freedom would not be fruitful without individual self-
respect.

Periyar observed that political freedom as conceived by nationalists not excluding even Gandhi
and Jawaharlal Nehru did not cover individual self-respect. To him neither revival of the original spirit
of Hindu religion and ancient traditions which formed part of Gandhi's conception of freedom, nor
complete liberation from the British rule which was considered by Nehru to be the meaning of freedom or
both of them together could ensure individual self-respect or remove the ills from Indian societies. In his
opinion the task of fulfilling the need for self-respect would have to be faced whatever be the extent
of political freedom gained. Pointing out that even the British monarch in a sovereign independent nation
had no freedom to marry a person of his choice and had to abdicate his kingdom, Periyar raised a question
whether Gandhi's vision of freedom or Nehru's concept of independence contained even an iota of individual
self-respect.

The main tenets of the Self-Respect Movement in society were to be: no kind
of inequality among people; no difference between rich and poor in the economic life; men and women to be
treated as equals in every respect without differences; attachments to caste, religion, varna, and
untouchability to be eradicated from society with a prevalent friendship and unity around the world; and
every human being seeing to act according to reason, understanding, desire, and perspective, and shall not
be subject to slavery of any kind or manner.

Equality with stress on economic and social equality formed the central theme of the Self-
Respect Movement was due to Periyar's determination to fight the inequalities ingrained in the caste
system and religious practices. Working on the theme of liberating the society from the baneful social
practices perpetrated in the name of dharma and karma, Periyar developed the idea of establishing this
movement as the instrument for achieving his objective.

Tamil Brahmins were frequently held responsible by the followers of Periyar for direct or
indirect oppression of lower-caste people this resulted into attacks on Brahmins and which among other
reasons started a wave of mass-migration of the Brahmin population.

One of the major sociological changes introduced through the self respect movement was the
self-respect marriage system, where by marriages were conducted without being officiated by
a Brahmin priest. Periyar had regarded the then conventional marriages were mere financial arrangements
and often caused great debt through dowry. Self-Respect marriages encouraged inter-caste marriages and
arranged marriages to be replaced by love marriages. It was argued by the proponents of self-respect
marriage that the then conventional marriages were officiated by Brahmins, who has to be paid for and also
the marriage ceremony was in Sanskrit which most people did not understand, and hence were ritual and
practices based on blind adherence.

Satya Shodak Samaj

Satyashodhak Samaj was established by Jyotiba Phule on September 24, 1873. This was
started as a group whose main aim was to liberate the socially oppressed Shudra and Untouchables castes
from exploitation and oppression. Through his writings and activities Phule always condemned Hinduism and
the privileged status of priests in it. He openly condemned the inequality in the religious books, orthodox
nature of religion, exploitation of masses by the means of it, blind and misleading rituals, and hypocrisy in
the prevalent religion. While condemning the prevalent religion, Phule established Satyashodhak Samaj with
the ideals of human well being in broader aspects, human happiness, unity, equality, and easy religious
principles and rituals.

Phule was influenced by the writings of Christianity, he said that in this age of science one
should not be guided by the dogmas, rituals and superstitions. Phule says that prior to Aryans various
indigenous tribes were present in India. He considers the tribes were the first Hindus and Aryans as the
second Hindus who came to India. The original ruler of West India was ‘Bali’ and that the whole kingdom
was flourishing with prosperity, but with the advent of Aryans caste consciousness was injected in the
society and this led to various wars and hierarchical society.

He considers that all the evils in society is the result of Aryans. They were responsible for
converting an egalitarian society like India into a non-egalitarian one. He asked people to forget
interpersonal differences and come together as “Bahujan”(community of people) and adopt one identity i.e.
"Maratha” to fight against injustice and inequality. He said that Arya Samaj movement speaking about
reforms should not be acceptable for the reason that it promoted Aryans superiority and culture. He
indicated that nationalist movement will never give you space for the benefits of the people at the lowest
rung of the hierarchy as it is dominated by Brahmins and Baniyas.To get away from the domination of
Brahmin he asked people not to get themselves involved in rituals. Ambedkar later joined Satya Shodak
Samaj and consequently developed a party known as ‘Dalit Panther Party’ which later came to be known as
‘Republican Party of India’.

Dalit Movements

Dalit, also called Outcaste, is a self-designation for a group of people traditionally regarded
as Untouchables. Dalits are a mixed population of numerous caste groups all over India. While the caste
system has been abolished under the Indian constitution, some people claim that there is still discrimination
and prejudice against Dalits in India. Since Indian independence, significant steps have been taken to provide
opportunities in jobs and education. Many social organizations have encouraged proactive provisions to better
the conditions of Dalits through improved education, health and employment.

In the context of traditional Hindu society, Dalit status has often been historically associated
with occupations regarded as ritually impure, such as involving leatherwork, butchering, or removal of
rubbish, animal carcasses, and waste. Dalits work as manual labourers cleaning streets, latrines, and
sewers.Engaging in these activities was considered to be polluting to the individual, and this pollution was
considered contagious. As a result, Dalits were commonly segregated, and banned from full participation in
Hindu social life. For example, they could not enter a temple nor a school, and were required to stay
outside the village. Elaborate precautions were sometimes observed to prevent incidental contact between
Dalits and other castes. Discrimination against Dalits still exists in rural areas in the private sphere, in
everyday matters such as access to eating places, schools, temples and water sources. It has largely
disappeared in urban areas and in the public sphere.[14] Some Dalits have successfully integrated into urban
Indian society, where caste origins are less obvious and less important in public life. In rural India, however,
caste origins are more readily apparent and Dalits often remain excluded from local religious life, though
some qualitative evidence suggests that its severity is fast diminishing.

Dalit movement receives momentum and confidence from Gandhi. He was recognised as mass
leader and when he dined with Dalits it gave a mass message to eradicate this discrimination. He gave the
concept of Harijan. Most of the people who could not go for Sanskritisation went for conversion as a
protest against Brahminic domination. Gandhiji said that "one is high or low on the basis of deeds and not
on the basis of birth".

Gail omvedt considers that Dalit movement is not an ideological movement but rather it is a
class movement. Dalit identity and poverty as an experience are interconnected to each other. Since the
beginning of Indian civilisation till contemporary times Dalits are oppressed class. They are victims of
monopolistic culture of the Hindu pundits. Thus their condition is no different from blacks in case of West.

Over the period of time Dalit movement in India started losing mass appeal as it was hijacked
by specific group of people for the glorification of their own political interest i.e. from Dalit Panthers
party to Republican Party of India and subsequently Bahujan Samaj party is the indication of politicisation
of Dalit cause rather than focusing upon ameliorating the conditions of Dalits. Some sociologists are also
concerned about the rise of Dalits within Dalit. Their concern is that Dalit movement in India has given way
to the growth of elitism and that different Dalit leaders does not only engage in contesting different
ideologies but they also keep changing their ideology according to their own convenience. Therefore Dalit
party today is not a product of Dalit movement rather it is a politics of opportunism and politics of
convenience similarl to other political parties.

Time is come when Dalit should not accept the cultural subordination as a matter of fact but
the pride and conviction they should glorify the idea that “yes we are Dalit” and open their eyes so that
they are no more taken for a ride by political parties who are least concerned about their upliftment and
more concerned about their own vested selfish interest.

In conclusion it can be advocated that in India Dalit movement is a movement of protest, a

protest against Brahmanism, inequality, cultural subordination. It wants to demolish the distinction between
man and man. It was to create a society driven by self-respect, inclusiveness and equity. It tries to
homogenise all depressed classes together injecting into their mind new found ideology. Thus Dalit movement
is an ideologically charged ,homogenised class movement intended to bring change of structure rather than
change in structure.
 Feminist Movement
The feminist movement (also known as the Women's Movement),refers to a series of
campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal
pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment and sexual violence.

A Lingam advocate the feminist movement in India is slowly leading towards NGOisation. She
finds out that thousands of NGOs working around the country are taking up women issues differently in
different space. She believes that women movement in India should be integrated in order to become more
focused in approach and appeal.

Veena Mazumdar finds out that women movement in India is mostly accused to being middle-
class, educated women's movement who are questioning to women's rights both in public and private
sphere. But in case of grassroot level the NGOs addressing to women's problem are more concerned about
women's livelihood, their protection and their rights. Therefore there is a paradox between issues and
question with regard to strategies associated with women movement in urban and rural India.

Women movement in India is a watchdog to the excesses of state and it is greatly engaged in
highlighting problems of women with regard to their rights and duties.Looking into the diversity, complexity
and diffusion of women issues different sociologist have developed various approaches to study feminist
movement. Gail Omvedt divided India's feminist movement into two types such as women equality
movement and women liberation movement.

Historically feminist movement can be divided into two phases:

First phase: 1850–1915

The colonial venture into modernity brought concepts of democracy, equality and
individual rights. The rise of the concept of nationalism and introspection of discriminatory practices
brought about social reform movements related to caste and gender relations. This first phase of feminism
in India was initiated by men to uproot the social evils of sati (widow immolation), to allow widow
remarriage, to forbid child marriage, and to reduce illiteracy, as well as to regulate the age of consent and
to ensure property rights through legal intervention. Women in this phase were categorized along with
lower castes as subjects of social reforms and welfare instead of being recognized as autonomous agents of
change. The emphasis was on recreating new space in pre-existing feminine roles of caring. The women
involved were those related to male activists, elite, western educated, upper caste Hindus.

Second Phase: 1915–1947

Gandhiji legitimized and expanded Indian women’s public activities by initiating them into the
non-violent civil disobedience movement against the British Raj. He exalted their feminine roles of caring,
self-abnegation, sacrifice and tolerance; and carved a niche for those in public space. Women-only
organizations like All India Women's Conference (AIWC) and the National Federation of Indian
Women (NFIW) emerged. Women were grappling with the issues relating to the scope of women’s political
participation, women’s franchise, communal awards, and leadership roles in political parties.

Women’s participation in the freedom struggle developed their critical consciousness about their role and
rights in independent India. This resulted in the introduction of the franchise and civic rights of women in
the Indian constitution. There was provision for women’s upliftment through affirmative action, maternal
health and child care provision (crèches), equal pay for equal work etc. The state adopted a patronizing role
towards women. Women in India did not have to struggle for basic rights as did women in the West. The
utopia ended soon when the social and cultural ideologies and structures failed to honour the newly acquired
concepts of fundamental rights and democracy.

Kalpana Shah divides Indian feminist movement into three types:

 Moderate – it talks of gender equality, sensitisation of state towards the needs of women.
 Socialist – it is largely influenced by Marxist ideology and speaks about class mobilisation and class
action.
 Liberal – it is concerned about integrative approach to women issues involving state, women
organisation, women research centres and feminist groups.

Women's movement is an eye opener not only to amend the Indian society at large indicating
that state needs to be gender sensitive. Man needs to create space for women so that they genuinely
serve to make Indian society inclusive an egalitarian. Therefore gender movement may not be considered as
silent revolution but still it is not a violent one. Striking a balance between the two terms of
methodology, one can say women movement in India is more Indian addressing to issues associated with
everyday life of women coming from different strata of social life.
 Environment Movements
There is a strong linkage between nature and culture in India where nature is worshipped. Max
Mueller said that the Aryan religion is the most ancient religion known to mankind and Aryans worshipped
five great cosmic forces i.e. sky, earth, water, fire and air. Nature nurtures individual and is the foundation
to our religion. Love for nature is not contemporary phenomena. Since historic times they are never
considered as lifeless. Love for nature is therefore voluntaristic in case of India. Nature is treated as
mother, people go for holy bath for purification and therefore they carry sacred embodiments. Atharva
Veda gives description about different kinds of plants which have medicinal value hence nature is the source
of man's life.

Women and nature related as nature is fertile so are women, women and nature both
produced and reproduced, fertility is cyclic in both cases, nature is Centre of love, joy, compassion and
happiness so are women; nature stands for sacrifice so are women. Therefore nature is close to women.
Ahen nature becomes annoyed we experience earthquakes, cyclones, volcanoes etc similarly when woman get
angry they take the role of Kali, Durga.

Various ethnic groups have historic relation with nature. The tribes go for development of the
nature because they have respect and love for nature. Many tribes in India not only consider forest as a
place of residence but also as a place where the spirits of their ancestors live. During the birth of a child
he/she is taken to the ancestors tree to take the blessing of their ancestors. Nature ensures life, health,
protection, foundation to religion and food supply.

During British are colonial rulers found huge deposits of minerals present in the forest. They
tried to persuade the tribal people and trap mineral wealth. Forest became the land of the state and the
forest produce became first right of the state. The use of land for commercial purposes displaced the
tribals leading to distressful relationships.

Chipko movement initiated by Sunderlal Bahuguna who practised the Gandhian methods
of satyagraha and non-violent resistance, through the act of hugging trees to protect them from falling.
The modern Chipko movement started in the early 1970s in the Garhwal Himalayas of Uttarakhand, with
growing awareness towards rapid deforestation. The landmark event in this struggle took place in 1974,
when a group of peasant women acted to prevent the cutting of trees and reclaim their traditional forest
rights that were threatened by the contractor system of the state Forest Department. Village
communities took responsibility to protect forest from police and commercial forest users. They initiated
24-hour surveillance which persisted for 7 to 8 years. This is one of the most successful self organised
movement by villagers wherein men, women and children were all involved which forced the state to enter
into negotiations and declare traditional trees will not be uprooted. Their actions inspired hundreds of such
actions at the grassroots level throughout the region. By the 1980s the movement had spread throughout
India and led to formulation of people-sensitive forest policies, which put a stop to the open felling of
trees .

The Chipko movement, though primarily a livelihood movement rather than a forest
conservation movement, went on to become a rallying point for many future environmentalists,
environmental protests and movements the world over and created a precedent for non-violent protest. It
occurred at a time when there was hardly any environmental movement in the developing world, and its
success meant that the world immediately took notice of this non-violent Tree hugging movement, which
was to inspire in time many such eco-groups by helping to slow down the rapid deforestation, expose
vested interests, increase ecological awareness, and demonstrate the viability of people power. Above all, it
stirred up the existing civil society in India, which began to address the issues of tribal and marginalized
people. So much so that, a quarter of a century later, India Today mentioned the people behind the
"forest satyagraha" of the Chipko movement as amongst "100 people who shaped India"

Ramachandra Guha writes that dams are symbols of civilisation, development, economy,
modernity. It talks about sociology of dams and raise many questions "Dams For Whom"? He writes that
due to dams, from 1950 to 2000 around 15 million people are being displaced. Peasants, tribal
communities, illiterate people have no exposure to modern education, they don't have the skills and hence
they are directly dependent on natural resources. The state has not provided adequate rehabilitation to the
affected people.

Jawahar Lal Nehru said that “for the larger cause of development of nation people should
make some sacrifice”. He considered industries as temples of modernity and to Achieve economic
development they need to be set up. But in reality the actual cost of development is paid by the
indigenous people who in the name of development lost everything.

Due to inadequate rehabilitation program, rehabilitation colonies set up by the government

looks like a war zone . Humans have been left at the mercy of nature. No productive resources are
available to be exploited for their survival and people dependent on government ration had to wait four
weeks. Nehru considered the industrial development as builder of modern India but it has created more
disparity leading to poverty and inequality wherein there is growth but no development.

Sardar Sarovar Project

This dam is one of India's most controversial dam projects (over Narmada River)and its environmental
impact and net costs and benefits are widely debated. There are two groups present:

 Beneficiaries – (big industries).

 Displaced tribal people.
People love for nature is subdued by the state lust for nature. Tribal livelihood versus interest of
capitalist led to large-scale protest which worked as an eye-opener to the governments hegemonistic
actions. The rich farmers of Gujarat wants the height of Dam to be increased whereas the tribal people
of Madhya Pradesh protest against it. The capacity of the rich, to lobby and influence political decision-
making had adversely affected not only the interest of the tribals but degradation of environment.
There is visible contest between state development agenda and people's livelihood.

Chilka Bachao Andolan : This movement was a result of introduction of commercial fish
cultivation which affected the livelihood of local fishermen as it deteriorated the ecological conditions
thereby affecting the direct dependency of people on fishing. People went for both violent and non-
violent methods followed by massive protest resulting into a ban on trawlers. This also resulted the
return of migratory birds and preserved the beauty of nature and also its ecology.

The reluctance of the government to learn from past mistakes (Bhopal gas tragedy) has led
to promotion of capitalist interest not only at the cost of local community but also environment.
Opencast mines located at various places like Orissa, Jharkhand, Bengal is not only affecting the health
of local communities but also severely degrading environment and destroying forest thereby leading to
natural catastrophe like Flash floods, landslides etc. New awareness programs are getting momentum in
these areas and peoples movement are coming to the forefront.

Gandhian crusaders like Baba Amte, Sunder Lal Bahuguna etc follow a method of protest that
says that there should be more of connectivity between people and nature. More one has interest for
material comfort more we go for exploitation of nature. Nature has limited growth and demand is
increasing which is creating a lot of pressure on the ecology. To abolish this problem we have to contain
our needs and develop a tendency to live with nature in harmony. They ask people to go for sustainable
development approach rather than high-speed approach.

The spread of environmental awareness and media has also played pivotal role in emergence of
environmental movement. People were previously unaware of the importance of the environment. But as
the environmental awareness increased due various reasons people started protecting their environment.
Some e.g. are the local movements to protect the purity of different rivers such as Ganga and Yamuna.
The greening of many Indian cities also comes under this category. The Bhagidari movement of Delhi is a
good example of this kind of environmental movement. Media has also played an important role in
sustaining theses movements.

A balance must be established between economic growth and environmental protection. We

need to go for systematic planning and scientific application through the use of modern technology to
minimise environmental impact as much as possible and make it a development led growth rather than
growth without development.
 Ethnicity And Identity Movements
An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other,
through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a
shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. Another definition is that
it’s a biologically self-perpetuating group sharing common interest in a homeland connected with a
specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common
religious faith".

When we discuss about the problem of tribe we find ourselves completely lost because of lack
of communication with them. Tribals can be best understood by knowing their residual tribal elements.
When tribal people start coming into mainstream and start having close connection with the larger
civilisation, it leads to the problem of adjustment which many a times also results into their
exploitation. As a result they go for protest and movement.

The whole question of tribal identity has been lost because they have been subjected to
variable cultural and religious influences depending upon the region they are living into. For example in
north-eastern States Christianity dominates, in Kerala there is domination of Islam and in central India
Hinduism dominates.

Tribals entry into Hindu fold is not a matter of voluntary choice as portrayed by GS Ghurye.
Sanskritisation is not a voluntaristic process for the tribals but a compulsion for them to self sustain in
mainstream society. When state reorganisation committee was constituted it gave importance to
cultural identity. Hence states were created on linguistic basis.

Struggle between tribes and non-tribes are historic but more specific during colonial times.
Tribal protest was not anti-imperialism as they were unaware of this term. They just meant to control
their own land. The tribal movements in central India was against exploitation. Tribal never makes a
difference between indigenous exploitation and colonial exploitation.

The Hindu identity of the tribals have been questioned time and again which made them
realise that they are Hindus not by choice but by force and compulsion. Every community while
searching for identity went for territorial demarcation. Language cannot bring unity among people
because different tribes speak different languages therefore what brings unity is the territory. If
Asamese for Ahom, Maharashtra for Marathis then what is for tribal people.

Territory is essential for political assertion and this movement became intensified when the
tribals were dislocated and wanted their land back. Fragmented tribal movements went for unification,
proclaiming their identity, territory, state etc to revive their past culture e.g. Jharkhand and
Chhattisgarh identity are examples of such movement.
 Jharkhand movement revolves around factors like culture, economic and socio - polity. It is an
anti-colonial and anti-imperial movement; anti-government movement which is reacting to development
displacement and finally anti-exploitation movement united against traders and moneylenders. Identity is
the foundation to tribal movement in general and Jharkhand movement in particular. Identity is
foundation to social movement has been an essence of ethno-politics in India.

In case of tribal society geographical isolation, land alienation, industrialisation, inflow of non-
tribal population into tribal areas put the tribal population into a disadvantaged position which led to
glorification of tribal identity which further resulted into a movement in search of separate state.
Identity focused movement has gone through stages of revolution starting from the colonial period.
Tribals were exploited in the hands of the colonial rulers who drove them out of forest and stripped
them off their livelihood.

During the second stage many tribal leaders evolved from different parts of the country who
glorified tribal rights and in a heroic manner fought war against the colonial rulers and their agents
rejecting the exploitative land tenure policy, encroachment on forest land and forest resources. Birsa
Munda movement,Gond rebellion, Santhal rebellion are often considered as peasant movement by
sociologist's but Dr.V.Xaxa considers these movements as identity focused movements. He says that
when Hindu peasants simply rebelled against exploitative land tenure system, the tribal people rebelled
against the lost of identity than just loss of livelihood. He criticised the nationalist sociologists like
Ghurye, MN Srinivas, NK Bose who believed that tribes voluntarily accepted Hindu culture and that
they are backward Hindus. Tribals went for non-tribal identity for social recognition, for survival because
non-tribals were predominant in every area. Therefore it is a form of enforced identity.

During the first stage ,the revivalist movement got momentum in tribal India. The tribal
leadership emphasised on integration of all tribes, irrespective of name, location and class position. The
tribe exposed to modernity took up the leadership role highlighted the exploitation of tribes in the
hands of the non-tribal and initiated reforms in tribal life and culture and advised tribals to go for
secular beliefs and practices. Adivasi Mahasabha was constituted and attempts were made to unify all
dispersed tribe located in central Indian state to stand together and go for homeland for tribesmen,
known as greater Jharkhand as sovereign state. The nationalist aspiration of tribes of central India is
considered as an attempt for tribal demand to control the benefits of progress and modernity. Srinivas
considers a as obstacle in the process of nation-building and Ghurye tells this as secessionist and anti-
national movement.

After India's independence ethnic mobilisation of tribes of India is focusing attention on the
state centric exploitation. State has the mandatory responsibility to protect the rights of people but in
case of tribal, and the big dams, encroachment of forest land, expansion of industries in tribal pockets
are initiated by the state. State benefits at the cost of people therefore gap between the two is so
greatly expanded that it has given way to alienation and marginalisation of the tribe. Thus the tribes
were mobilised to have a people centric state, a government of their own who would be sympathetic to
their needs and concern therefore a demand for separate tribal state, identity is being used as platform
for ethnic consultation in search of political assertion in tribal India.

Even in tribal states non-tribals have a significant economic and numerical presence as a result
the tribal states evolved public policies that do not fulfil the aspiration of tribal community. Therefore
the tribes are not divided on class lines which is glorifying naxalite movement and Maoist insurgency in
tribal states. The marginalisation, displacement and alienation of tribals in their own soil is providing
foundation to common ideology and common class identity accelerating class conflicts in tribal India.
Therefore central Indian tribes are shifting from identity-based movement to issue-based movement.

In case of North East India, the states of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura
are experiencing identity movements which has become more pronounced in contemporary India. In
Manipur two groups exist i.e. Nagas and Kukkis. These tribes are engaged in war with each other and
are fighting in perpetuity for their identity. Identity has become a source of distinction and has become
so powerful in case of tribals in north-eastern India that they can even go to eliminate each other on
this basis. Tripura is full with non-tribal population which is the result of escalation of conflicts among
the people.

The Bodo people in Assam who consider themselves to be the original inhabitants are
outnumbered slowly by the Bengali population who have control over industries which leads to regular
conflict between them. Tribal identity is glorified due to this infiltration of non– tribal people into
tribal areas.

Nagas were greatly dispersed tribe prior to partition and carried different names in different
states of North East India. After independence the demarcation re-marked their dislocation, restricted
their mobility and this has challenged their identity which resulted into protest and movement and in
most cases resulting into violence and loss of life.

In 1970 separate State of Nagaland came into existence thus giving right to the people to
have their own government which further glorified political aspirations by various tribes of other states.
The same thing happened in case of Mizoram wherein the Mizos who considered themselves as
‘Highlanders’ and indigenous people/original inhabitant protested for a separate State status which was
granted to them.

But rather than solving the problem by the creation of separate state for Nagas and Mizos it
further complicated the problem. Indigenous tribes belonging to other areas also started protesting for
separate statehood. “Nagas are having Nagaland, Mizos are having Mizoram – what is for us?” This
question further aggravated the protest for a separate statehood in several parts of north-eastern India
which is still continuing.

Another reason for the coordination of identity-based protest in north-eastern States is for
the reason that even though autonomy was given to the people but practically it was squeezed from
the people themselves i.e. creation of district councils to fulfill their aspirations which failed to break
any ice with them as it was occupied by powerful people with vested interests

Once tribal state is created, the search for tribal identities by various other tribes led to war
against each other over the issue who will hold major share in power structure. This gave rise to ethno-
politics in India which is highly complex particularly in case of North East.

Identity gets glorified because of two reasons i.e. inaction of government and over reaction of
government to the protest. Identity appear, disappeared and consolidates due to different reasons and
at different points of time. Other movements can die out but identity movement will survive in one
way or the other e.g. in contemporary times-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.

Thus it can be concluded that identity and tribal conflicts in India is a conflict between:

 state versus people;

 within a state – insider versus outsider;
 within tribe – one faction versus other faction
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Sociology as Science
Science, Scientific Method and Critique
The need to have sociology as a new branch of knowledge was realised quite late and many branches of
knowledge had already taking shape and gained respectability before sociology was conceived. These branches of knowledge
have been termed as "Sciences". Examples of some of the sciences which preceded sociology are Astronomy, Physics,
Chemistry and Biology. Thus sociology that grew under the shadow of illustrious predecessors like Physics and Biology tended
to emulate their patterns. The basic assumption that is central to the sciences that distinguished them from mediaeval learning is
that: Truth about the world can be known through sensory observation.

Thus the scientist seeks his truth by observing the world rather than by waiting for revelations like a cloistered
monk or by meditating like a Hindu mystic. Sociology also inherited this premise. An illustration of knowledge based upon
sensory observation is, if one sees a bird that is called by the people ‘a crow’ and finds it is black, then one arrives at the
conclusion that ‘crow is black’. The veracity of this knowledge lies in the fact that it is supposed by sensory observation. But
our senses can sometimes deceive us. It is very real possibility to be guarded against. Scientists adopt certain procedural steps
that seek to reduce such a possibility. These act of procedural steps constitute the Scientific Methods.

Perspective

Knowledge based on sensory observation has a paradoxical character. The following statement seeks to convey
this paradox in a simple way. "In order to gain knowledge about anything we should know something about it". If they know
nothing at all about the object of an enquiry we shall never be able to know anything about it. In case we are totally ignorant
about something and yet want to acquire knowledge about it through sensory observation, we make certain assumptions about it,
and start an enquiry with the belief that these assumptions are true. Of course if these assumptions are not supported by facts
gathered through sensory observations, we should be ready to abandon them. The significance of these assumptions is that they
tell us what to look for or where to direct our sensory observation. This point would become evident through the following
examples:

 if a doctor trained in modern medicine wants to find out the reasons for the symptoms like headache, giddiness and
general weakness, he might examine the digestive system, the food taken by his patient or he might monitor the heart
beats and blood pressure or enquire about his sleeping patterns and also take into account the weather conditions. He
may find his answer from some of these conditions.

Now, think of shaman in a tribal village who also tries to cure the patient with similar symptoms. He may
explore the possibility of a spell caused by witch or of the disenchantment of the supernatural power with the person concerned
due to some act of omission or commission on its part.

In the third case, where a person has neither been trained as a doctor nor as a shaman, he would not be trying
either of these ways. Perhaps he may not know where to look for the reasons at all.

In the case of the Doctor, trained in modern medicine, his search for the cause, is governed by a set of
assumptions namely; human body is unified whole, it has specialised parts. These parts tend to be interdependent and
malfunctioning of one lead to malfunctioning of the other. Basing himself on such assumptions, he's likely to see
interrelationship between headache, and digestion failure or giddiness and blood circulation. On the other hand the shaman may,
by means of assumptions that world is governed by supernatural forces, who need to be a appeased , failure to do so might invite
divine retribution. This may be supplemented by another assumption that certain individuals are endowed with special powers
directed towards evil which makes them likely source of ill-health of the neighbours.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Thus from the above illustrations, one can see how underlying assumptions shape one's enquiry. While the
absence of assumptions renders one incapable of carrying out any enquiry. As it is evident from the case of person who has
neither been a doctor nor a shaman. Now a set of mutually consistent assumptions which underlie our approach to things, we
want to explore is called a "Perspective". All systematised enquiries need perspective. So does sociology. Though it has not yet
succeeded in building a unified one, rather, there are three major perspectives that supplement each other.

Concepts

If we can appreciate the significance of language in our day to day life, we should also be able to appreciate the
significance of concepts in scientific method. Language is a system of symbols that forms the medium through which we
comprehend the world around and inside us and it is the basis of a thought process. It also acts as a means of communication
with others without which social life would be impossible. Now language has been termed as a system of symbols because
linguistic terms are abstractions, i.e. they are mentally created and to them certain meanings are imputed by which they come to
stand for the real phenomena.

Following example illustrates this characteristic of the language:

When we use phrase "a human being", it creates an image of certain type of biological organism. Therefore, we
call it an abstraction . Next if we did not have the image in our mind we would not be able to think about the organism and since
others also have a similar image associated with same linguistic labels, it would be possible for us to convey our thoughts to
others in a brief manner. Otherwise, we would have to describe each aspect of the organism to others to communicate an idea.
Thus in brief, language is a system of symbols which helps us in comprehending reality, thinking about it and communicating
our opinions of reality in a shortcut manner others.

Now, concepts are, what scientific language is made up of in fact all languages are made up of concepts. Only
difference being that concept in scientific language are more precisely and un-ambiguously defined. Sometimes, terms from
dead languages, like Latin, are adopted to avoid any ambiguity due to mixing up with day to day language. Botany is one such
case were rather awkward terms are used quite often. Otherwise concepts serve the same function as all other linguistic terms
do. They help in comprehending the reality that the science is engaged in studying. They act as mediums of shortcut
communication among those associated with enquiry. Through it must be conceded that in its attempt to ensure precision and
brevity, scientific concepts to make scientific languages rather esoteric (understood by or meant for only the select few who
have special knowledge or interest), beyond the comprehension of even an educated lay man. However, in sociology most of the
concepts are terms taken from day to day language which are given precise meaning. Yet, problems remain namely, sometimes
different terms are used to signify the same phenomena or vice versa. For the meanings of the existing concepts may undergo
change over time. These factors may contribute to ambiguity or stop hence sociology is only partly successful in achieving the
scientific goal of having clear and precise concepts to stop if you refer to "the elements of social life", we find the use of many
sociological concepts namely status, roles, groups, institutions, society, interaction, accommodation, assimilation and so
on.

Gathering information on constructing explanations: the basic procedural steps involved in gathering information on
construction of explanations are,

1. Observation,
2. Comparison & Classification and
3. Generalisations.

Observation

Scientific knowledge is based on sensory observation of reality. Those aspects of reality that are definite,
certain, self-evident and have independent existence are called "Facts". Since they have an independent existence of their own
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

so they are amenable to sensory observation. However, scientific investigation is not a search for isolated and random facts
rather it is a guided enquiry to test the authenticity of definite propositions that form the starting point of gathering information.
They are called "Hypothesis". A hypothesis states that what we are looking for. It formulates the logical relationship between
different aspects of reality expressed in terms of scientific concepts. A good hypothesis should be specific, simple and presented
in testable form. Sociology also makes use of hypothesis in carrying out sociological research but this practice is not always
strictly adhered to. Especially when a sociologist is trying to explore society, about which he knows very little, it would not be
possible to begin the research with hypothesis. Some examples of hypothesis which may be used in sociological enquiry can be,

 crime rates are high in urban areas than in rural areas;

 Pace of urbanisation increases with that of industrialisation.

Here, the concepts like crime rate, urban, rural, urbanisation, and industrialisation, etc, should be clearly defined
beforehand. Now, sociologist would have to look for facts only in specific areas relating to these propositions rather than
wandering all over. Thus, hypothesis helps to narrow down a score of sociological enquiry to manageable limits.

Sometimes hypothesis may be tested under experimental conditions. Most of the established sciences do use
experimental method quite successfully. However, in sociology, experiment and method is only rarely possible due to both
practical and ethical reasons; so observation is carried out mostly under non-experimental conditions. Sources of data include,
social service, observational and interview methods etc.

Comparison and Classification

Next step in search is to process the information collected so as to make it intelligible. Comparison and
classification are the steps involved in processing the data, sometimes sociologists also tried to build typologies by using
comparative method. Typologies are models consisting of a set of traits which tend to occur in conjunction with each other.
When the typology is rooted in empirical data and the traits included are such that they tend to be most commonly distributed, it
is called the ‘Average Type’. Building an ‘average type’ helps in categorising the whole class of phenomena under one
category. Otherwise, the researcher would be left to deal with such phenomena as isolated cases. ‘Mechanical Solidarity’ and
‘Organic Solidarity’ are examples of such average types. They are mental creations of the social scientists and in their pure form
they could not be found to be replicated anywhere in reality. Such typologies are called ‘Ideal Types’.

Generalisations

A Generalisation is a form of propositional knowledge that holds true for the whole class of phenomena. It
postulates the existence of a determinate relationship, between a set of variables (variable is an aspect of reality that can assume
different values) in terms of which empirically ascertainable regularities can be explained. Explanation may be given in terms of
the cause or consequences of any phenomena or it can be both. However, in sociology perfect causal relationship is not possible.
At best, we can establish statistical correlations.

The Generalisations can be arrived at if our hypothesis is repeatedly supported by empirical data. If
generalisation is found to be almost universally true, it may be called a “Law”. Other terms of generalisations having different
degrees of generality are “theory” or a “tendency statement”. Generalisations serve two major functions. Firstly they make
knowledge manageable. Imagine, Newton having to go on individually describing each object that fell towards the earth. It
would be a never-ending process. By stating the phenomena in general terms namely, the Law of Gravitation, one generalisation
alone suffices for all. Secondly Generalisations also helps in predicting the phenomena. For example by knowing the third law
of motion, we can always predict that whenever a body will emit exhaust of gas in one direction it is bound to be pushed in the
opposite direction.

Tradition becomes possible because as Einstein said "nature does not play the game of dice". Nature behaves in
an ordered manner & science aims at discovering this order that is expressed through generalisations. Thus generalisations are
possible only so long as reality itself displays a regular pattern. Sociology also approaches its subject matter on the premise that
social reality is an ordered and patterned reality. However, sociologists have not been able to discover laws similar to those in
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

physical and natural sciences, the reason being that their assumption about the nature of social reality is only partly true and
therefore only limited generalisation indicating broad trends would be discovered. The social phenomena are extremely complex
and changeable and do not conform to any definite pattern.

Positivism and its Critique

Many sociologists have argued that logic, methods and procedures of natural sciences are applicable to the study of
man. A science of human behaviour is therefore possible and sociologist has much claim to scientific status as physics,
chemistry and biology. Such claims were often made by founding fathers of sociology for example, Auguste Comte (1798 –
1857) argued that application of natural science methodology to the study of man would produce a ‘positive signs of society’. It
would reveal that evolution of society followed in variable laws. It would show that behaviour in the social world is governed by
laws in the same way as behaviour in the natural world. Contemporary sociologists are more cautious about claims for scientific
status of their discipline.

Indeed many reject the view that natural science methodologies appropriate for the study of human behaviour.
Despite these reservations a considerable body of sociological research has been and still is directed by research methodology
drawn from the natural science. This approach to the study of man is often known as positivism.

Before examining positivist methodologies sociological necessary to look at the logic and method of scientific
enquiry. The account that follows is overly simple and represents only one view of natural science methodology. However, it
does contain many of the ideas which have guided sociologists who assume that such methodologies appropriate to the study of
human behaviour.

The natural scientist is concerned with investigating and explaining behaviour of matter in the natural world. He
assumes that this behaviour is subject to unalterable laws. Since the behaviour of matter is governed by laws, it is therefore
determined: every event in the material universe has a cause. By systematic observation and experimentation, the natural
scientist seeks to reveal the causes of behaviour and so discover the laws by which it is governed. He assumes that matter
always reacts in a predictable way to external stimuli. This can be shown experiment Delhi. In laboratory experiments scientists
are able to shoot at under fixed conditions, matter will always behave inexact in the same way in response to a particular
stimulus. To take a simple example, water always boils at the same temperature. Matter is compelled to react in this way
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

because it has no consciousness. It has no intentions, hoppers is or motives which direct its behaviour. Matter does not define an
external stimulus in terms of a range of meanings and therefore vary its response to that stimulus.

As a result the natural scientist is not required to explore and take account of the internal consciousness of
matter in order to explain its behaviour. He can simply observe its activity ‘from the outside’. He's able to explain its behaviour
merely as a reaction to an external stimulus.

The natural scientist systematically observes and measures the behaviour of a matter. The result of these
observations are regarded as objective facts, as data which are not distorted by the value judgements and ideology of the
particular scientist. This is due to the availability of objective system of classification and measurement, for example measuring
systems for temperature, volume and pressure. The results of observation using such objective criteria can be confirmed by other
scientists. Their accuracy can be checked by the application, dieties by the repetition of CDs observations or an experiment
under the same conditions. For example, it can be shown that a given amount of heat applied to a fixed volume of a particular
liquid will always produce the same amount of gas.

By such controlled experiments it is possible to establish causal relationships between the factors or variables
involved. From this kind of observation the natural scientist constructs theories to explain the behaviour of matter. A behaviour
is observed which differs from that predicted by theory, then the theory is either modified or changed. Thus by constant
reference to observable and measurable data, the natural scientists is able to develop and refine theories which predict and
explain behaviour of matter.

If it is assumed that behaviour in the social and natural worlds is governed by the same principles, the natural
science methodologies appropriate for the study of human society. Positivist sociology is largely based on this assumption will
stop it argues that both man and matter are part of the natural universe and that the behaviour of both is governed by natural
laws. Just as matriarchs to external stimuli, so man reacts to forces external to his being. Social and natural behaviour is
therefore determined and can be explained in terms of cause and effect relationships. The data of natural sciences are drawn
from direct observation of the behaviour of matter, behaviour which can be quantified according to objective criteria. The same
procedures are possible in the observation of human behaviour. Only factors which can be directly observed an objectively
measured from acceptable data. Thus the motives, feelings and mental states of individuals, factors which cannot be directly
observed, are inadmissible. In fact it is unnecessary to probe the consciousness of the individual senses behaviour is caused by
external forces rather than internal feeling states. It is these forces which must be examined in order to explain human
behaviour. Just as natural science involves the core structure of theories based on observable data, so sociology can develop
theories based on direct observation of human behaviour. Given these assumptions, natural science methodologies applicable to
the study of man.

Critique

Fundamentally, positivist knowledge is knowledge alienated from both the social scientist and the society
studied. The relationship between the positivist and the social world they study has often been termed a "contemplative stance."
The only role that is acceptable for the positivists to play is one of contemplating the world they study. Their information can be
given or sold to the powers that be and used for administration of anything from welfare to "criminal justice," but the role of
sociologist can only be that of observer of the given reality. Positivist thought is called "one-dimensional" by Herbert Marcuse
because positivist sociology is reduced to the contemplative observation of what is, and the ethical impulse to judge the social
world and transform it into one in which humans may be free of domination is suppressed by the positivist concept of
knowledge. As Emile Durkheim (1938), the French positivist sociologist, said, "social facts are things." This statement
expresses the attempt of positivism to commodity knowledge and to reify or "thingify" social reality which is actually composed
of changing living human relationships.

The term reification literally means "thingification". It means that positivists treat the concrete flux of social
experience as if it were reducible to their abstract models of it. Soon empirical experience becomes little more than an excuse to
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

"test" an abstraction, or to use a sophisticated mathematical model such as "path analysis" or the various types of "systems
analysis." Sociological positivism, at its most sophisticated, becomes abstract, reified objectivistic idealism. Positivism hides
from the social world it claims to study, in the relative security of cumulative statistical obscurity. Furthermore, all system's
analysis and statistical sociology operate on the assumption that what appears to exist is the extent of reality. The model of the
system's analyst has no room for "new variables" and conceptualizes reality from the point of view of the status quo. The very
categories of analysis are developed under the assumption of the existence of reality as it is, not as it could be. This is a built-in
bias to system's analysis which the technicians and theorists alike do not question.

Sociological positivism bases the verification of its knowledge on a notion of facts as irreducible units of truth
which are to be discovered by the social scientist. But facts do not fall to us from heaven. They are a constructed part of the
society and the intellectual context within which we live and work (Berger, 19 ). For the positivist, some fragments of reality are
"facts", others are "values". Who decides what is what? This problematic of sociological positivism--that is, the collection of
assumptions, suppositions taken for granted, and factors omitted (or critical sciences)--is seldom if ever examined by the
positivists themselves. The positivists are content to elaborate their rules of methodology, either ignoring the social theory on
which they are based or refusing to admit that they have a theory. The assumption behind the technocratic facade of "high
science" sociology is the claim of the scientific method to a cognitive monopoly on truth. This is an essentially religious or
dogmatic claim of truth, not an enlightened and open pursuit of truth. Positivism's claim to truth is most often expressed in the
ideology of "value-free" social science.

The social world did not spring out of nowhere. It is the historical product of human beings and should be
understood and criticized in its historical and cultural context, not simply described in a "factual" manner. The most obvious
flaw of traditional theory is that it is ahistorical. The objects we find in our social environment--cities, towns, fields and
factories--are not simply given to us by Nature, they are historical products of human labor. Not simply "reality in itself," but
also the way in which we perceive reality is historically conditioned.

Fact,value and objectivity

Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Sociology also being a science aspires for the goal objectivity.
Objectivity is a frame of mind so that personal prejudices, preferences or predilections of the social scientists do not contaminate
the collection of analysis of data. Thus scientific investigations should be free from prejudices of race, color, religion, sex or
ideological biases.

The need of objectivity in sociological research has been emphasized by all important sociologists. For example
Durkheim in the Rules of the Sociological Method stated that social facts must be treated as things and all preconceived notions
about social facts must be abandoned. Even Max Weber emphasized the need of objectivity when he said that sociology must be
value free. According to Radcliff Brown the social scientist must abandon or transcend his ethnocentric and egocentric biases
while carrying out researches. Similarly Malinowski advocated cultural relativism while anthropological field work in order to
ensure objectivity.

However objectivity continues to be an elusive goal at the practical level. In fact one school of thought
represented by Gunnar Myrdal states that total objectivity is an illusion which can never be achieved. Because all research is
guided by certain viewpoints and view points involve subjectivity. Myrdal suggested that the basic viewpoints should be made
clear. Further he felt that subjectivity creeps in at various stages in the course of sociological research. Merton believes that the
very choice of topic is influenced by personal preferences and ideological biases of the researcher.

Besides personal preferences the ideological biases acquired in the course of education and training has a
bearing on the choice of the topic of research. The impact of ideological biases on social-research can be very far-reaching as
seen from the study of Tepostalan village in Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it with functionalist perspective and concluded
that there exists total harmony between various groups in the village while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the same
time from Marxist perspective and found that the society was conflict ridden. Subjectivity can also creep in at the time of
formulation of hypotheses. Normally hypotheses are deduced from existing body of theory. All sociological theories are
produced by and limited to particular groups whose viewpoints and interests they represent. Thus formulation of hypotheses will
automatically introduce a bias in the sociological research. The third stage at which subjectivity creeps in the course of research
is that of collection of empirical data. No technique of data collection is perfect. Each technique may lead to subjectivity in one
way or the other. In case of participant observation the observer as a result of nativisation acquires a bias in favour of the group
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

he is studying. While in non-participant observation of the sociologist belongs to a different group than that under study he is
likely to impose his values and prejudices.

In all societies there are certain prejudices which affect the research studies. In case of interview as a technique
the data may be influenced by context of the interview, the interaction of the participants, and participant's definition of the
situation and if adequate rapport does not extend between them there might be communication barriers. Thus according to P.V
Young interview sometimes carries a subjectivity. Finally it can also affect the field limitations as reported by Andre Beteille
study of Sripuram village in Tanjore where the Brahmins did not allow him to visit the untouchable locality and ask their point
of view.

Thus complete objectivity continues to be an elusive goal. The researcher should make his value preference
clear in research monograph. Highly trained and skilled research workers should be employed. Various methods of data
collection research should be used and the result obtained from one should be cross-checked with those from the other. Field
limitations must be clearly stated in the research monograph.

Read of a value judgement is the slogan of most of the contemporary western sociologists. Sociological, they
argue, should be concerned with social facts and their interconnections, with the study of social interaction without any
reference to values, norms or purposes. If sociology is to be a distinct signs it is argued, sociologist must refrain from passing
value judgement. Hence it is proclaimed sociology should be value neutral.

For the sociologist, societies both the objective of study and the source of his own values. The values also form
part of the society being studied, and a sociologist must be objective about them. Yet, he cannot avoid acting according to values
because he himself is a social being.

In principle, any sociologist’s account of a society or a social situation, or to consist, first, of an objective
statement of observation connected with each other biological analysis, or explanation. They should be objective in the sense
that if another sociologists came and repeated the analysis he would get the same results, and if it did not, the difference between
the two would be explained by mistake that the other had made in observing the fact. Secondly, the sociologist account might
also contain his own evaluation recommendation, about the society or situation concerned.

Many sociologists find no harm in the value interpretation so long as it is clearly distinguishable from the
factual analysis, so long, that is as a sociologist makes it clear when is introducing a value judgement.

In the first phase, the study of values is itself a study of certain types of facts. Ethics, for example, is a study of
the ways in which men as members of society approve certain classes of acts and condemn others; it is a study of the conditions,
psychological and sociological, in which moral beliefs, practices and values have appeared.

Non-positivist Methodologies
Non-positivist epistemologies take various forms but are firmly set against the utility of a search for laws or
underlying regularities in the world of social affairs. For the non-positivist, the social world is relativistic and can only be
understood from the point of view of the individuals who are directly involved in the activities being studied. Non-positivists
reject the standpoint of the observer, which characterises positivist epistemology, as a valid vantage point for understanding
human activities .
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Non-positivist research is characterised by the detailed observation and involvement of the researchers in the
natural setting in which the study occurs, together with the avoidance of prior commitment to theoretical constructs or
hypotheses formulated before gathering data.

Quantitative Research

The assumption underlying the quantitative research approach is that research designs should be based on an
objective view of the world and follow the positivist model of controlling variables and testing pre-specified hypotheses.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research, as a field of inquiry in its own right, cuts across disciplines, fields, and subject matter.
Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of
the meanings people bring to them. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers are concerned about the individual's point of
view, however, qualitative investigators believe they can get closer to the subject's perspective through detailed interviewing
and observation. They argue that quantitative researchers seldom are able to capture the subject's perspective because they have
to rely on more remote, inferential empirical materials. The empirical data produced by the softer, interpretive methods, are
regarded by many quantitative researchers as unreliable, impressionistic and not

objective.

Interpretive Research

Interpretive studies are based on relativistic epistemology

(a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature,methods, and limits of human knowledge) , a volunteerist view of
human nature and an ideographic methodology. Interpretive studies conform to interpretive paradigm. Interpretive studies
reject the possibility of an objective accounting of events and situations, seeking instead a relativist, shared understanding of
phenomena. Generalization to a population is not usually sought. Rather, the intent is to gain a deeper understanding of the
phenomena which is believed can be used to inform in other contexts.

Interpretive researchers attempt to understand the way research subjects construe, conceptualize, and understand
events, concepts and categories as these are assumed to influence individual behaviour . Interpretive researchers have adopted
a wide range of philosophical thought, including phenomenology,
hermeneutics(the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures) and critical social theory in constructing their research
practices, all of which have the common characteristic of attempting to explain and understand the social world from the point
of view of those directly involved in the social process. Interpretive research methods include action research, case studies,
ethnography, hermeneutic analysis, narrative analysis, use of metaphors and grounded theory.

Critical Research

Critical research is based on a belief that the current social systems are historically based and seeks to develop
standpoints where current social practice can be analyzed with a view to replacing it with other structures and norms.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Sociology – The Discipline

Modernity and Social Changes in Europe and the Emergence of Sociology
Sociology is a comparatively new subject. The emergence of sociology is often credited to the sudden changes
occurred in late 18th and 19th-century Europe. Founding fathers of sociology viz. August Comte (1798 – 1857), Herbert
Spencer (1820 – 1903), Emily Durkheim (1858 – 1917), Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) lived in this era of profound upheavals in
European society. These changes encompassed almost each dimension of the life of society, be it economics, politics, culture.

 Economic changes: There was a transition from pre-industrial feudal society to capitalist industrial society during this
period. Earlier most of the people worked in the fields with ‘feuds’ as owners and ‘serfs’ working under them. Now,
there was a rise of new industries driven by heavy machines which required additional high labour input. This demand
of labour prompted land – workers to migrate toward cities. In this way there was a sudden and huge out swell in
population of cities which led to the increase of squalor, poverty and congestion. The new environment in city was
highly impersonal and there was breakdown in older social traditions and relations.

 Political and ideological changes: There was a transition in political beliefs of the people. The divine right of
monarch/King to rule over the masses was being questioned. The ideas of democracy, equality, liberty, secularism
started gaining prominence in the efforts of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. French Revolution
proved to be a watershed event and held in rapid propagation of these ideas. The old theological saying that "the rich
man in his castle, and poor man at his gate, God made them highly or lowly and ordered their estate" was no more being
agreed upon to by the people and there was an increased belief in responsibility of mind towards the fate of society
instead of some supernatural reality of God this let to the separation of church from the state.
 Scientific changes: the old and traditional beliefs, norms and values came under high stress owing to new discoveries in
science and technology. Darwin's “origin of species”, invention of steam engine by James Watt and many more new
discoveries in natural science made people to question older religious beliefs. Overall there was a new awareness in
society coupled with a visible poverty. Ton understand these changes there was advent of sociology.

Europe produced a Scientific Revolution in the Renaissance period of 14th to 16th century A.D. the impact of
the scientific revolution was crucial not just in changing material life, but also people's ideas about nature and society. Science
does not develop independent of society, rather it develops in response to human needs, for example various vaccines were not
developed just out of the blue, but out of the necessity to cure diseases. Apart from influencing the physical or material life of
society, science is ultimately connected with ideas. The general intellectual atmosphere existing in society influences the
development of science. Similarly, new developments in science can change the attitude and believes in other areas as well.
New scientific ideas influenced scholars to think about society in new ways. The emergence of sociology in Europe owes a great
deal to the ideas and discoveries contributed by science. The Renaissance period saw the beginning of the scientific revolution.
It marked an area of description and criticism in the field of science. It was a clear break from the past, a challenge to old
authority.

The French Revolution , which erupted in 1789 marked the turning point in the history of human struggle for freedom and
equality. It put an end to the stage of feudalism and ushered in a new order of society. This revolution brought about far-
reaching changes in not only French society but in societies throughout Europe. Even countries like India got influenced with
the French Revolution long after it changed the structure of European society.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Scope of Sociology and its Comparison with other Social Sciences

What a sociology?

Sociology is defined as the "scientific study of social life". It is a brief definition. But the problem with such a definition
is that it leaves the basic questions unanswered. It does not enlighten us about what is being referred to as "social life". Even the
meaning of "scientific study" is not self-evident. This problem can become worse if one tries to find the meaning of "scientific
study" in the view of various sociologists and discover rather conflicting opinions.

To understand sociology we must first attempt to understand what is the meaning of social life. Putting it simply, social
life is made up of social behaviour. To be sure, all human behaviour is not social. For example, functioning of human heart to
pump blood into different parts of human body is certainly an aspect of the behaviour of human organism but it cannot be called
social, rather, it is physiological behaviour. On the other hand, if you make a gift to someone and claim that this is from the
‘heart’, here you are performing social behaviour. Heart here is involved in a metaphorical sense. Again when one blinks, it is
called reflex action but, if one winks at someone, it is clearly a social action.

These illustrations show that for behaviour or action to qualify as social, presence of others is essential, whether to give
gifts or to wink at or for any other purpose. Purpose as such is not important, it could be as innocuous as giving gifts or as
dangerous as shooting with a gun. It may be as trifling as winking or as serious as getting married. Even others need not be
always present is physically. They may exist in a person's memory only, due to past associations . Thus, when one writes a letter
to someone, or sits alone and takes a walk down the memory lane, reminiscing of the days gone by, one is still performing a
social act. The same is true of the acts of daydreaming when one anticipate the future. Mere presence of others is not enough.
What is important is one’s awareness of others presence. Thus, listening to news in a radio is a social act, but hearing noises is
not, unless one starts cursing the neighbours for learning music at odd hours.

Being aware of others presence, one gives meaning to their presence. Wn the basis of these meanings, motives are
formed. To realise these motives, the behaviour is enacted. Therefore on opening the door one may encounter a visitor and
interpret him/her as a friend or foe and thus accordingly he/she may treat him/her with hospitality or hostility. Interpretation of
the situation involving others and conveying one's own meanings and motives to others involve communication that is possible
only through commonly shared symbols. Going back to earlier examples, "giving gifts" and "winking at" are essentially acts of
communication. In fact, all language is symbolic communication.

To summarise, social action is a meaningful act, oriented towards others. It is a purposeful act and is enacted through
commonly shared symbols. It is the basic unit of social life. But rarely would you find social behaviour consisting of an isolated
social act. Normally, every social act is a response to some earlier social act, and stimulus for the social acts, for example
"giving a gift" may be reciprocated by polite "thanks" or a more passionate response. When new social act has been stimulated it
goes on making interconnected chain of social acts that, constitute social behaviour. The interconnected chain of reciprocal
social acts is called "Social Interaction". This is an ongoing process like a flowing river.

Now, social interaction does not take place in a random fashion. Barring a few bumbling fools, most of us know how to
behave in different situations while enacting the behaviour we let ourselves be guided by this knowledge. In other words, we
know what to expect from others and what others expect from us. For example men are supposed to behave decently in the
presence of ladies. Now imagine, the sense of guilt suffered by a man on Monday morning for his drunken behaviour on Sunday
night party, where he could not measure up to other's expectations of civilised behaviour.

Failure to live up to what society expects from us, engenders a sense of self condemnation. Boy, having failed to do as
well in the exams as expected by his parents, may even contemplate suicide. The Japanese do commit ritual suicide called
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

"Harakiri", when they think that they have the belied the expectations of their motherland. Disapproval of such deviations may
range from mild rebuke given to a child who does not show proper respect to his elders, to a strong sense of revulsion against a
murderer or a rapist. All these examples show that our knowledge of what is expected of us and what to expect from others
plays an important role in shaping our behaviour.

But how do we know as to what be legitimately expected of whom?

This problem gets resolved because we grow up seeing others, in terms of certain labels. The meanings of these
labels are commonly shared and they tell us about the behavioural expectations related to different situations . These levels in
sociological language are called "Status" and that behaviour which follows in accordance with these explanations is called
"Role". To be a warrior expectations are defined by a set of norms, associated with each status. Examples of statuses are, father,
son, daughter, husband, wife, friend, enemy, doctor, patient,citizens, politicians, and so on. Every one of us occupies one status
or other throughout our lives. So our behaviour comes to be regulated by normatively defined expectations associated with the
statuses and acquires a degree of definiteness and tends to follow a pattern.

Parents are supposed to look after their children, while children have to pay the price of being looked after by
parents, by having to be obedient and respectful towards the parents. Spouses are supposed to be nice and faithful to each other.
Friends should try to help each other and should not stab in the back, while the enemies are deemed likely to do it any time. One
can go on citing such examples of how role expectations associated with various statuses that we occupy exercise constraint and
tends to pattern our behaviour. However, people do not always conform to normatively expected behaviour. Like fathers have
been found to have forsaken their children just as children disobey their parents, people do commit crimes like theft, adultery
and murder. These instances of the deviation from their expected roles are termed as "Deviance" in sociological language. But
more often people do succeed in approximating to the role expectations, otherwise the world we live in would have been in
chaos.

Now, the more or less definite behavioural patterns that resulted out of role expectations are called "Relations".
The connectivity of people having definite relations and cooperating amongst themselves to achieve a common goal is called a
"Group". Due to different types of needs and interests that people have, a variety of groups come into existence. Examples of
such groups, are family, a village community, a business organisation, a political party or a nation . Sthese groups happen to be
interrelated and form a part of larger and more inclusive group called “SOCIETY”. Quite often, the term society and nation are
used interchangeably in sociological literature.

All these groups are directed towards attainment of certain objectives that satisfies the needs and interests of the
group members. For example, families ties for overall welfare of its members or a political party competes for power that may
later be used to further the economic interests of the class from which it derives support etc. Not all the objectives of a group
may be approved by other groups in the society. For example, the objectives of terrorists may not find support beyond a small
section that makes their own cadre.

Now, How Does One Decide Whether The Objectives Are Legitimate Or Not?

This can be done by evaluating them in terms of certain universally expected standards of desirability. Those
standards are called "VALUES". All societies, if they have to maintain harmony among the members must have consensus
among them regarding certain basic values, though they might not always succeed in attaining such a consensus but still some
values which are mostly cherished in contemporary society are Liberty, Peace, Patriotism and Happiness etc.

In each pair of activity there exists a set of norms are defined the most acceptable way of attaining the goal is in
consonance with the general values of the society. These set of norms relating to important aspects of social life are called
"Institutions". Institutions provide the normative framework within which the group functions. So far in our discussions we
seem to have presumed that people automatically know about what values are to be cherished, what norms are to be followed,
what symbols are to be used, what means are to be given and so on. But these assumption does not hold true for human beings.
Only lower animals, who were equipped with genetically transmitted instincts can fend for themselves without any need for
being trained to do so. A bird can build its nest and the rabbit its burrow without having to learn architecture and civil
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

engineering. Human beings, however, need training whereby knowledge, which is needed to enact social behaviour, is acquired.
These knowledge, and that is socially transmitted is called “Culture” and the process of learning is termed as “Socialisation”.

Now, while performing social behaviour people often coordinate their activities and try to help each other in
order to achieve commonly shared goals. For example, think of a married couple. Both are committed to the common goal of
maintaining household and raising the family and therefore they come to share the responsibilities. Wife may look after the
home and husband may go out to earn while both of them could join hands to bring up children. This process of mutual help is
called "Cooperation". But such happy families are not to be found everywhere sometimes people find their interests clash and
opinions differ. In such a situation cooperation is not possible. What might result is called "Conflict". The process of conflict
can take numerous forms like verbal duels or wifebeating as well as such bloody and brutal ones like communal riots, terrorist
attacks and wars among nations.

However, the routine day to day life cannot be carried out smoothly if conflict becomes too frequent or too
violent. So society tries to suppress conflicts like it suppresses other deviation from social norms. This process of obtaining
conformity to social norms is called as "Social Control". The means of social control include religious legal sanctions or
physical coercion. But not all can be checked simply by repression. Sometimes they are so deep-rooted that they need resolution
rather than suppression. This can be brought about by changing the existing set of relations. Such an effort at redefining the
social relations is termed as "Social Change".

Now, just as conflict precedes change, so also change can precede conflict. For example, two groups of people
each with its own culture may come into contact with each other and over time this contact may lead to changes in their
respective cultures. This change may be resented by some members of the group. This is what happens when youngsters after
having been to the universities in the cities, acquire a new culture that may be very different from that of their parents. Therefore
the generation gap may become hard to bridge and may lead to conflict in the family. Such process of culture contact leading to
change and even conflict is called "Acculturation".

However, total cooperation and total conflict are two extreme forms of social interaction. What is more typical
of social situation is that, the two neighbours may dislike each other but never make it so obvious and continue to pretend to be
good neighbours. This make-believe world is also to be seen in the behaviour of spouses, politicians and businessmen alike.
This process is called "Accommodation", by which people decide to get along with each other in spite of difference of opinions.
But sometimes the spouses on neighbours who started with difference of opinions, may over time come to an understanding
with each other and start living as happily married spouses or good neighbours. This is called "Integration". At some point of
time in future the two neighbours may come to have total agreement on all aspects of life. This would be called "Assimilation"
in sociological language. However in real life complete assimilation is never realised, though a reasonable degree of harmony
can be attained.

The scope of sociology and its relationship to other social sciences

T h e s c o p e o f s o c i o l o g i c a l s t u d y i s extremely wide. It can focus its analysis of interactions between
individuals such as that of a shopkeeper with a customer, between teachers and, between two friends or family members. It can likewise
focus on national issues such as unemployment or caste conflict or the effect of state policies on forest rights of the tribal population or rural
indebtedness. Or examine global social processes such as: the impact of new flexible labour regulations ontheworkingclass;orthatof the electronic
media on the young; or the entry of foreign universities on the education system of the country. What defines the discipline of sociology is
therefore not just what it studies (i.e. family or trade unions or villages) but how it studies a chosen field.

S o c i o l o g y i s o n e o f a g r o u p o f social sciences, which also includes anthr opology, economics,

political science and histor y. T he divisions among the various social sciences are not clear cut, and all share a certain range
of common interests, concepts a n d m et h o d s . I t i s t h er e f o r e v er y i mp o r t a n t t o u n d er s t a n d t h a t t h e distinctions
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

of the disciplines are extent arbitrary and should not be seen in a straitjacket fashion. To differentiate the social sciences would be
to exaggerate the differences and gloss over the similarities. Furthermore feminist theories have also shown the greater n e e d o f
i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y a p p r o a c h . For instance how would a political scientist or economist study gender roles and their implications
for politics or the economy without a s o c i o l o g y o f t h e f a m i l y o r g e n d e r division of labour.

Sociology and Economics

Economics is the study of production and distribution of goods and services. The classical economic approach
dealt a l m o s t ex c l u s i v e l y w i t h t h e i n t er - relations of pure economic variables: the relations of price, demand and
supply; money flows; output and input r a t i o s , a n d t h e l i k e. T h e f o c u s o f traditional economics has been on a narrow
understanding of ‘economic activity’, namely the allocation of scarce goods and services within a society. Economists who are influenced by
a political economy approach seek to under stand economic activity in a broader framework of ownership of and relationship to
means of production. The objective of the dominant trend in economic analysis was however to formulate precise laws of
economic behaviour.

The sociological approach look sat economic behaviour in a broader contextofsocialnorms,values,practicesand

interests. The corporate sector managers are aware of this. The large investment in the advertisement industry is directly linked to the need to reshape
lifestyles and consumption patterns. Trendswitheconomicssuchasfeministeconomics seek to broaden the focus, d r a w i n g i n g e n d e r a s a
c e n t r a l organising principle of society. For instancetheywouldlookathowworkinthehomeislinkedtoproductivityoutside.The defined scope of
economics has helped in facilitating its development asa highly focused, coherent discipline. Sociologists often envy the economists for the
precision of their terminology and the exactness of their measures. And the ability to translate the results of their theoretical work
into practical suggestions having major implications for public policy. Yet economists’ p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t i e s
o f t e n s u f f e r precisely because of their neglect of individual behaviour, cultural norms and institutional r esistance
which sociologists study. A true economic science would look at all the costs of the economy-not only at the costs that
corporations a r e c o n c er n e d w i t h , b u t a l s o o f crimes, suicides, and so on.

W e n e e d t o p u t f o r w a r d a n e c o n o m i c s o f h a p p i n e s s , w h i c h would take note of all

the profits, individual and collective, material a n d s y m b o l i c , a s s o c i a t e d w i t h activity (such as security),
and also t h e ma t er i a l a n d s y mb o l i c c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n a c t i v i t y o r precarious employment (for
example consumption of medicines: France holds the world record for the use of tranquilisers).

Sociology unlike economics usually does not provide technical solutions. But it encourages a questioning and
c r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . T h i s h e l p s questioning of basic assumptions. And thereby facilitates a discussion of not just the
technical means towards a given goal, but also about the social desir ability of a goal itself. Recent t r en d s h a v e s e e n
a r es u r g e n c e o f economic sociology perhaps because of both this wider and critical perspective of sociology.

Sociology provides clearer or more adequate understanding of a social situation than existed before. This can b e
e i t h e r o n t h e l e v e l o f f a c t u a l knowledge, or thr ough gaining an improved grasp of why something is
happening (in other words, by means of theoretical understanding).

Sociology and Political Science

As in the case of economics, there is an increased interaction of methods and appr oaches between sociology and
political science. Conventional political science was focused primarily on two e l e m e n t s : p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y a n d
government administration. Neither branch involves extensive contact with political behaviour. The theory part usually focuses on
the ideas about government from Plato to Marx while courses on administration generally d ea l w i t h t h e f o r ma l s t r u ct u r e
o f gover nment rather than its actual operation.
Sociology is devoted to the study of a l l a s p e c t s o f s o c i e t y , w h e r e a s conventional political science
restricted itself mainly to the study of power as e mb o d i e d i n f o r ma l o r g a n i s a t i o n . Sociology stresses the inter-relation-
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

ships between sets of institutions i n c l u d i n g g o v e r n m e n t , w h e r e a s political science tends to turn attention

t o w a r d s t h e p r o c es s es w i t h i n t h e government.

However , sociology long shar ed s i m i l a r i n t er es t s o f r es ea r c h w i t h political science.

Sociologists like Max Weber worked in what can be termed as political sociology. The focus of political sociology has been
increasingly o n t h e a c t u a l s t u d y o f p o l i t i c a l behaviour. Even in the recent Indian elections one has seen the extensive
study of political patterns of voting. Studies have also been conducted in membership of political organisations, p r o c e s s o f
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i n organisations, sociological reasons for support of political parties, the role of gender in politics, etc.

Sociology and History

Historians almost as a rule study the past, sociologists are more interested in t h e c o n t e mp o r a r y o r r ec e n t p a s t .
Histor ians ear lier wer e cont ent to delineate the actual events, to establish how things actually happened, while in sociology the focus
was to seek to establish causal relationships.

History studies concrete details while the sociologist is more likely to a b s t r a c t f r o m c o n c r e t e

r e a l i t y , categorize and generalize. Historians today are equally involved in doing sociological methods and concepts in their
analysis.

C o n v e n t i o n a l h i s t o r y h a s b ee n about the history of kings and war. The history of less glamorous or exciting
events as changes in land relations or gender relations within the family have t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n l es s s t u d i e d b y historians but
formed the core area of t h e s o c i o l o g i s t ’ s i n t e r e s t . T o d a y however history is far more sociological and social history is the stuff
of history. It looks at social patter ns, gender r e l a t i o n s , m o r e s , c u s t o m s a n d important institutions other than
the acts of rulers, wars and monarchy.

Sociology and Psychology

Psychology is often defined as of behaviour. It involves itself pr imar ily with the individual. It is
interested in her/his intelligence and learning, motivations and memory, nervous system and reaction time, hopes and fears.
Social psychology, which ser ves as a br idge between psychology and sociology, maintains a primary interest in the individual
but concerns itself with the way in which the individual behaves in social groups, collectively with other individuals.

Sociology attempts to understand behaviour as it is organised in society,that is the way in which personality is shaped by
different aspects of society. For instance, economic and political s y s t e m , t h e i r f a m i l y a n d k i n s h i p structure, their culture,
norms and values. It is interesting to recall that Durkheim who sought to establish a clear scope and method for sociology in his well-
known study of suicide left out individual intentions of those who commit or try to commit suicide in favour of statistics concerning
various s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s e individuals.

Sociology and Anthropology

A n t h r o p o l o g y i n m o s t c o u n t r i e s incor porates ar chaeology, physical anthropology,

cultural history, many branches of linguistics and the study o f a l l a s p e c t s o f l i f e i n “ s i m p l e societies”. Our
concern here is with s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d c u l t u r a l anthropology for it is that which is c l o s e t o t h e
s t u d y o f s o c i o l o g y . Sociology is deemed to be the study of modern, complex societies while social anthropology was
deemed to be the study of simple societies.

As we saw earlier, each discipline h a s i t s o w n h i s t o r y o r b i o g r a p h y . Social anthropology developed

in the west at a time when it meant that western- trained social anthropologists studied non-European societies often thought of as
exotic, barbar ic and uncivilised. This unequal relationship between those who studied and those who were studied as not
remarked upon too often earlier. But times have changed and we have the erstwhile ‘natives’ be they Indians or Sudanese,
Nagas or Santhals, who now speak and write about their own societies. T h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s o f t h e
p a s t d o c u m e n t e d t h e d et a i l s o f s i mp l e s o c i e t i e s a p p a r e n t l y i n a n e u t r a l scientific fashion. In practice they
were constantly comparing those societies with the model of the western modern societies as a benchmark.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Other changes have also redefined the natur e of sociology and social anthropology. Modernity as we saw led t o
a pr ocess wher eby the smallest v i l l a g e w a s i m p a c t e d b y g l o b a l processes. The most obvious examples
colonialism. The most remote village of India under British colonialism saw i t s l a n d l a w s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n change, its
revenue extraction alter, its manufacturing industries collapse.

Contemporary global processes have further accentuated this ‘shrinking of the globe’. The assumption of studyinga s i m p l e s o c i e t y
w a s t h a t i t w a s bounded. We know this is not so today.

The traditional study of simple, n o n - l i t e r a t e s o c i e t i e s b y s o c i a l anthropology had a pervasive

influence on the content and the subject matter of the discipline. Social anthropology t e n d e d t o s t u d y s o c i e t y
( s i m p l e societies) in all their aspects, as wholes. In so far as they specialized, it was on the basis of area as for example the A n d a m a n
I s l a n d s , t h e N u e r s o r Melanesia. Sociologists study complex societies and would therefore often f o c u s o n
p a r t s o f s o c i et y l i k e t h e bureaucracy or religion or caste or a process such as social mobility.

Social anthropology was characterized by long field work tradition, living in the community studied and using
ethnographic research methods. Sociologists have often relied on survey method and quantitative data using statistics and the questionnaire
mode.

Today the distinction between a simple society and a complex one itself needs major rethinking. India itself is
a c o m p l e x m i x o f t r a d i t i o n a n d modernity, of the village and the city ,o f c a s t e a n d t r i b e , o f c l a s s
a n d community. Villages nestle right in the heart of the capital city of Delhi. Call centres serve European and American clients
fr om diff er ent towns of the country. Indian sociology has been far more e c l e c t i c i n b o r r o w i n g f r o m b o t h
traditions. Indian sociologists often studied Indian societies that were both part of and not of one’s own culture. It c o u l d a l s o
b e d e a l i n g w i t h b o t h comp lex diff er entiated societies of urban modern India as well as the study of tribes in a
holistic fashion. It had been feared that with the d e c l i n e o f s i mp l e s o c i et i es , s o c i a l anthropology would lose
its specificity and merge with sociology. However there have been fruitful interchanges between the two disciplines and
today often methods and techniques ar e drawn from both. There have been anthropological studies of the state and
globalisation, which are very different from the traditional subject matter o f s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . O n t h e
other hand, sociology too has been u s i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i t a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s , m a c r o a n d m i c r o
a p p r o a c h e s f o r s t u d y i n g t h e complexities of modern societies.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Sociology and Common Sense

How Is sociological study different from the common sense-based view of social life? Or we can raise the question
differently. Take any average person, we find that in the process of growing up, he has come to arrive at a "theory" on almost all aspects of
social life. He has a theory of good and bad of marriage and family, city and country life, of making money or of joining politics. Can such a
theoretician be called a sociologist? Well, in a way Yes! He is an amateur sociologist of sorts but no more. Unless we're ready to call a
stargazer an astronomer, a peasant an agronomist and tribal living in a forest, a botanist. Thus a common sense-based view of social
life is not sociology. This holds true even if sometimes we find that statement based on the folk wisdom come remarkably close to
sociological theories. For example, "give the dog a bad name and it will get blamed for lot many things". It is a piece of folk wisdom that
does convey the essence of Howard backer’s "Labelling Theory of Deviance" which says that a person's behavioural patterns is likely to be
influenced by the types of labels given to him. Go on calling somebody a vandal and it is quite likely that he might live up to his reputation.
However, we need not be on the defensive about the special status of Sociology as a specialized body of knowledge. Simply because even
lay man tend to explore the areas, which sociologists also do. What distinguishes Sociology from a common sense is not an exclusive
phenomena to explore but a different way to look at the phenomena which others also can look at though not in the same way.

To repeat, sociology is essentially a special way of looking at the elements of social life. This special way of looking at things is what makes
sociology a systematic study. It is important to identify the elements that are special to sociologist’s way of looking at things, which are as
follows:

 Sociology approaches social life from the "man – in – society" standpoint. It conveys the dualistic and apparently paradoxical
conception of social life. It means that inclusive collectivity viz. society and its members exist in a relationship of interdependence in
which on one hand man are viewed as shaped by their groups and group heritage on the other hand, individuals are viewed as creators of
their common society and culture. Illustrations of both these conceptions of social reality can be seen in our earlier description of the
elements of social life. We mentioned that people behave in society as status occupants and by virtue of their behaviour gets constrained
by the need to conform to the role expectations. These role expectations are defined by the norms of the society that are essential for
collective living. Further, while enacting this definite behaviour, people use symbols that are collectively shared. The social behaviour is
impossible without the knowledge of various aspects of culture, namely values, norms, belief through socialisation. Thereby society gets
implanted in man and shapes his behaviour. Now this illustrates the first aspect namely, "society creates man". Evidence of second
aspect of sociologists conception of social life, that is, "Man Creates Society" can be found in our understanding of social behaviour in
terms of meanings ascribed by the individuals which form basis for motives that underlie social action. Now these meanings and
motives of the individual may differ from those commonly shared by the group and therefore may lead to deviant behaviour on the part
of individuals that in turn may change the behaviour of the whole group. Christ, Lenin, Gandhi was such individuals who could change
their societies. Even the lesser individuals do it to lesser extent.

 Sociology has a special and irrelevant attitudes towards social life Peter L Berger has called it a "debunking attitudes towards world
taking four granted". In his profession sociologists is a sceptic who refuses to accept the self – evident, common sense-based view of
the world at its face value, rather he makes a deliberate attempt to go beyond the "visual" and the "apparent" to look for the hidden
patterns, implicit meanings, underlying causes and unintended consequences. Sociologists work is to peep into people's life and he does
it with a passion to look behind closed doors. In fact a popular textbook writer has noted that, an adolescent who takes special delight in
peeping into places, otherwise prohibited by norms of decency, has the making of a perfect sociologists only he can retain the
voyeuristic curiosity throughout his professional career and directe it into all spheres of social life.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Illustrations of this debunking attitude can be found in the works of two great sociologists and is nowhere more evident
than in the study of religion, the most venerated institution in the society. We can look at the views of Emily Durkheim and Karl Marx who
have made pioneering contributions to the growth of sociology. In spite of the differences in their views on the role of religion both were
alike in their almost blasphemous views on religion. While discussing the consequences of religion for social life, Durkheim said that the
sociologists must distinguish between what believers thinks and what actually happens. People might believe that by worshipping God
together, they might be given health, prosperity or wealth, but according to Durkheim what actually results from such collective worships is
increased social cohesiveness. According to him religious beliefs including those related to the idea of God or any other sacred objects are
symbolic representations of the society. Thus by worshipping God one is worshipping society. Now this makes a drastic break from the
official view of religion. For example, the Christians belief is "God created man in his own image" while Durkheim was saying that
"Society created God in its own image".

Same debunking attitude is found more conspicuously by Karl Marx's critique of religion. For him, religion in spite of its past
appearance and noble intentions is one of the instruments of exploitations of the poor by the rich. It acts like a painkiller creating false sense
of satisfaction among the poor and therefore rendering them insensitive to the real cause of misery. These examples illustrate that the concern
of sociological investigation is to penetrate beyond the surface view of social life and seek explanations in terms of underlying causes,
meanings or unintended consequences of various social phenomena. The reason due to which the sociologists are not contended with the
generally accepted view of social life can be traced to the circumstances of sociology’s birth. Sociology was born in times of turmoil, when
Europe was in the throes of transition. The ancient regimes with their divinely obtain things, anointed Queen's, and noble courtiers had been
destroyed by commoners like Napoleon and the world of industrial bourgeoisie had taken its place. The trouble with the new world was that
though it was essentially a man-made world, yet it seemed to be perpetually going out of control of its makers. Here, lay the cause of
discontentment and therefore the quest to know the world better by looking beyond the obvious. Hence the rise of organised scepticism that
became the hallmark of Sociology.

 Another important feature of Sociology’s way of looking at things is that it approaches social life with the help of definite methods.
Sociology being a late comer, had the advantage of gaining from the experience of other branches of knowledge in devising the methods of
enquiry. But at the same time it had to face the limitation of having to apply these methods to study the most complex of all phenomena
namely, human behaviour.

Sociological Versus Non-Sociological Explanations

There still remains widespread ignorance and rejection of a sociological perspective when people think about human
behaviour. Other, more familiar, common sense perspective predominating people’s minds. They may, for instance, employ a biological
perspective in attempting to explain family and marital arrangements such as, women rear children because they have maternal instinct
(biologically determined) for this task. Similarly, they may use pseudo-psychological perspective explaining suicide (people commit suicide
when they are mentally unbalanced), or a moralistic perspective in explaining crime (criminals are people who have not developed a
conscience regulating their actions).

Because ordinary people are more familiar with these kinds of common sense perspectives in their everyday lives,
sociological approach does not come easily to them. This is further compounded by a deeply held commitment to the idea that we are all
individuals, unique beings with our own special qualities and idiosyncrasies, which sociologists deny, preferring to "put people in the boxes"
without regard for the individuality. Sociology, however, insists on a willingness to reject what is obvious, common sense, natural and to go
beneath the surface for understanding of the world. As Berger puts it: "the fascination of sociology lies in the fact that its perspective makes
us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived all our lives. It can be said that the first wisdom of sociology is that things are not
what they seem".

Sociologists emphasize, that what is common sense or natural maybe by no means universal or eternal, but is frequently
relative to particular societies or to particular periods in time. We can illustrate this to a basic and familiar area of human social experience of
courtship and marriage.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

The commonsense view of differences in behaviour between men and women in the family in our society tends to assume
that because there are biological and physiological differences between men and women, certain aspects of their behaviour are therefore
natural. For example it is often argued that it is common sense and natural that women will engage in child-rearing and domestic tasks and
that men will make sexual advances and will work outside the home. Mead’s study of New Guinea, sex and temperament in three
primitive societies, revealed the partiality of such commonsense interpretation of behaviour patterns. Among the Apache, there are very few
natural differences in men's and women's behaviour with neither sex exhibiting aggression: women did the heavy carrying (men stayed at
home with their wives during and after childbirth, sharing the pain and strain). Among the Munduracco, both sexes were aggressive, children
were treated brusquely by both parents, and lovemaking was rather like a pitched battle. Among the Tchambuli, yet further variation
occurred; men adorened themselves, gossipped and made things for trade while women selected their partners, made the sexual advances,
did all the trade, and were the more aggressive sex. Obviously, we cannot explain these very striking variations in behaviour via Biology,
since the people in the various societies were all the same biologically.

In the realm of courtship and falling in love, sociology further questions commonsense notions. In Western societies men
and women are popularly said to choose marriage partner by the uniquely personal act of falling in love – “Love strikes willy-nilly”, “across
a crowded room”, “in a magical chemistry” etc. Sociologically speaking nothing could be further from reality. As Berger says "as soon as
one investigates which people actually marry each other one finds that the lightning of shaft of Cupid seems to be guided rather strongly
within very definite channels of class, income education, racial and religious background" that is falling in love is regulated and constrained
by very powerful social factors. The odds against Prince Edward falling in love with Elsie from the Tesco supermarket are very high indeed.
Numerous other examples abound. For instance, to the Hopi Indians of North America it is common sense that rain clouds are God's and
must therefore be enticed to rain dances, a view not entirely consistent with that of metrological office. Similarly, in mediaeval Europe, it was
common sense that one could determine the guilt of innocence of an accused person through trial by ordeal e.g. accused people carried a
redhot iron bar for 10 paces, and if their wounds will heal after X days they would be declared innocent – again, this method is noticeably
absent in modern trials.

The essential point than, is that one person is common sense is somebody else's nonsense, and there are many examples of
sociological and anthropological investigation questioning and exploding many commonsense notions about behaviour. Although the use of
everyday commonsense beliefs is, usually not only unsystematic and inadequate but also often contradictory if we look more closely at
commonsense. It is likely such expressions of the world are based on what we shall call here individualistic and/or naturalistic assumptions.
What do we mean by these labels?

An individualistic explanation of some event or phenomenon assumes that the event can be readily understood and
explained solely through reference to the behaviour of individual(s) involved in it. There is no attempt to understand or explain the
phenomenon in terms of wider social forces. A naturalistic explanation behaviour rests on the assumption that one can readily identify
"natural" (or sometimes "God-given") reasons for behaviour such that, for example, it is only natural that two people should fall in love, get
married, live together, and raise a family.

Both types of expressions are rejected as inadequate by the sociologists- the individualistic because it does not recognise the importance of
wider social forces acting on the individual that he or she cannot control, the naturalistic because it fails to recognise that behaviour patterns
are not primarily biologically determined but rather reflect social conventions learned by individuals as member of social groups, or, more
generally, society.
 UNIT 29 SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Structure
29.0 Objectives
29.1 Introduction
29.2 What is Social Stratification?
29.2.1 Dinlensionsor Bases of Social Stratification

f 29.3 Types of Social Stratification

29.3.1 Age-set Systein
b
29.3.2 Slave System
29.3.3 Estate System
29.3.4 Caste System

29.3.5 Class System

29.3.G Race and Ethnicity

29.4 Theoretical Approachesto the Study of Social Stratification

I 29.4.1 Functional Approach

I 29.4.2 Coilflict Perspective

I 29.5 Let Us Sum Up

29.6 Key Words
29.7 Further Readings -
29.8 Model Answers to Check Your Progress

I 29.0 OBJECTIVES
- - - -

[ M e r reading this unit you should be able to:

I define the concept of social stratification;

discuss its three dimensions;

I
describe six types of social stratification; and
give an account of the fbnctionalist and conflict thaories of social stratification.

1 29.1 INTRODUCTION
Social stratification is an aspect ofthe wider issue ofsocial inequality. The existence
of socially created inequalitiesis a feature of all known human societies, and, therefore,
it is an important subject for sociologiststo discuss. Social stratification is the last of
the major concepts in sociology, discussed in this book. It is related to the study of
social change, which is the focus of our next block in this course. This unit is also the
link unit between these two blocks.

I
This unit explains what social stratification is, and then discussesits general principles
in terms of the bases or dimensions of social stratification. An account of basic
Sori;~lStructure types of social stratification,is followed by a discussion ofthe current sr~ciological
theories on social stratification.

29.2 WHAT IS SOCIAL STRATIFICATION?'

stratification is a system of social ranking, involving relations of superiority and
inferiority. These relations between the units of rank are governed by a set of norms.
Analytically, stratification is conceived of as an evaluative ranking of social units.
Concretely, it refers to the empirical distribution of advantages and benefits in society.
It can be seen as a process, which is regulated by some principles. These principles
deterdine the bases ofthe distribution of social advantages in society.

29.2.1 Dimensions or Bases o f - ~ o c &Stratification

l
The bases or dimensions of social stratification refer to the different 11:vels of
differentiation which are made to allocate people in a given society. These c& be
listed as follows:
i
i) Class: It refers to differentiation at the level ofwealth. In this sense it can be
termed as economic differentiation. i
4

ii) Power : It refers to differential access to power in society. It includes political, 1

social and other types ofpower. 4

iii) Status : It refers to distribution of prestige or social honour.

In most cases, the three dimensions complement each other. However, Max Weber
(1947) draws a distinction between class, power and status. According to Weber,
class is an economic catego&, a product ofthe market situation. The status group,
on the other hand, constitutes the social order based on prestige or honour. Status
is determined bythe social prestige one enjoys. Social prestige is expressed tlvough

I
dift'erent styles of life. Analytically, class and status groups can be independent
rial St rueture Each of these systems offers clearly argued theories, to explain and justii its respective
system of stratification. In some cases, there is flexibility regarding social mobility
fiom one stratum to another. In other cases, there is little or no chance of mobility
out of a stratum. The followingdiscussion ofthe different types of social stratification,
will make clear what the distinct features of stratificationin human societies are.
29.3.1 Age-set System
Societies, which have been described as stateless type of Fortes and Evans-Prirchard
(1 940), lack centralised government. ?'hey have no office of chief, or if thqr have
such an office, it holds more ritual than secular power. Still, such societies are found
to be stratified on the basis of age. This type of stratification, is a characteri:sticof
certain east African societies. The principle of age is most prominent among the
Masai and Nandi in East Mica, where ranking on the basis of age, is put together
with the exercise of authority, on the basis of seniority. The ranks determined on the
basis of age are called age-sets. All the persons (basically men) born, within a range
or number of years, belong to one set. The first age-set may comprise as short as
six or seven years or as long as fifteen.
In most cases, usually around adolescence, the membership; of the first a p s e t
closes and recruitment to the next set takes place. At this stage, entry to the new
age-set generally involves an initiation rite, such as circumcision or other body-marks.
Thus, after going through the ritual, each member comes out ofchildhood, and takes
of fbll membership of his tribe. Each person, thus, belongs to an age-set, to which
he remains attached throughout his life. Along with other members, he moves 1 o the
next age-set. The age-sets in these societies, determine their social organisation,
because membership of these sets covers all areas of life. It directs a pers13nto
decide whom he may marry, what land he can own, and in which ceremonies he can
take part etc. Thus, membership of each stratum tells a person about his ranking in
society.
In most cases, where age-sets operate, a member of an age-set also belong:; to a
particular age-grade. These grades are clearly marked out fiom one another, so that
a person belongs to only one grade at a time. Generally, a person after childhood
would move &omjunior warriorhood to senior warriorhood. Then he would pcluate
fiom junior elderhood to senior elderhood. The warriors fight and defend their tribe
from attack, while the elders take decisions and settle disputes. They also
communicate with the ancestral spirits. Thus, the age-sets go through the difixent
grades in complete units. In other words, all the members of one particular age-set
move into one grade all at once. Thus, their social status also changes all at once. In
the kinds of societies we belong to, each person usually makes his or her own natural
transition fiom childhood to adulthood and finatly to old age. But in age-set societies,
these transitions are made on a corporate basis as members of large age-sets.
In terms of a system of social stratification,the age-set system providesfor an open
society, in which no one is allocated a particular position for life. Everybody in his
time does become old, and therefore gets a chance to hold decisive authority. Thus,
this is a system in which personnel change within the system, without changing;the
pattern of stratification itself
29.3.2 Slave System
The slave system of stratification does not exist any more. Slavery was abolished in
1 833 by Britain and 1865 by USA. This was characterised by a high degree of
institutionalisation, i.e. there was a solid legal framework to the system. The main
emphasis in this system was on econon~icinequality, wlich rendered certain groups
 phenomena, but in reality the two overlap with each other. The notion ofpower is
the keynote of Weber's theory of social stratification. Both the propertied and the
propertyless can belong to the same status groups. Thus, economically determined
power is not always identical with the social or legal power.
It has been said that Weber's theory of stratification, is a reaction to Marx's theory
of class. We can say that Weber is the founding father of stratification analysis,
which developed best in the U.S.A. M m ,on; the other hand, was not a stratification
theorist. For him the oppositions and contradictions found in modes of production,
were of central importance. In answer to Marx's ideas on Ass, Weber developed
his ideas on stratification. He ernphasised the distinction of theeconomic, social and
political bases of stratification. Thus, he provided amulti-dimensionalapproach to
the study of social stratification.In ESO-14, you will get an opportunity to learn in
detail, about various approachesto, and aspects ofthe study of social stratification.
Here, we discuss different types of social stratification, found in human societies.

Activity 1
Take a round ofyour colony/villageand note down the pattern of housing, such
as, where the richest and most powerfUl people livei, where the market is situated,
where the poorest people live. Write a one page assay on "Social Stratification
in my Community" Discuss your paper with other' students and your Academic
Counsellor at your Study Centre.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: a) Use the space given for your answer.
I b) Compare your answer with the one gden at the end of this unit.

1) What are the three bases of social stratification? Use one line for your answer.
..........................................................................................................

2) Distinguish between class and status group. Use three lines for your answer.

I 29.3 TYPES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Broadly speaking, the following types of social stratification have been known to
exist:
i) the age-set system
j ii) slave system,
I iii) estate system,
iv) caste system,
v) class system, and
vi) racelethnic system.
1 Social S t r ~ ~ c t u r c The typical characteristics ofthe caste system are - i) the membership is hereditary
I and fixed for life, ii) each caste is an endogamous group, iii) social distance is
encouraged by the restrictionsof contracts and comrnensality wid1members of'other
castes, iv) caste consciousilessis stressed by caste names as well as by conformity
to the particular customs of the particular caste, and v) occu~pationalspecialis ation.
The system is rationalised by religious belief.
Caste operates at two levels. Firstly in terms ofan abstract classification into four
types of 'vama' : brahmin (priests), Kshatriya(lungs), vaishya (merchants) arid sl~udra
(workers). Secondly at the operational village level, there is a division of local
communitiesinto groupingscalled jati. The rigidity of this system is unchange:able.
Marginal upward social mobility, is possible by a process called sanskritisatica. In
this process, members of a lower caste adopt the manners and customs of a higher
caste, and sever their ties with their original caste. (For a descriptiveelaboration of
this concept, you are advised to read block V in ESO-12 and blocks of ESO-14).
Individual features of the caste system can be observed in other societies, which
follows strict segregation ofparticular groups. But caste system in its entirev is of
course, found in India, and outside India among Hindus settled abroad and within
India among non-Hindu groups. The stronghold of caste and the trends towards
change in its nature and hnctioning, have affected the pattern of social ~tratific~~tion
in India. You will learn about this process in ESO-14.

29.3.5 Class System

The class system is very different from the systems of stratification, we have so far
discussed. Social classes are neither legally defined nor religiouslysanctioned grc~ups.
Rather, these are relatively open groups which have been considered to be the by
products oftlle process of industrialisation and urbanisation throughoutthe world, in
all illodem industrial societies.

The class system of social stratification basically implies, a social hierarchy bilsed
primarily upon differences in wealth and income. These differences are expressed
in different life styles and hence different consumption patterns. In some case:; we
also find different manners in terms of speech and dress. As a general type, class-
systems are characterised by social mobility- upward and downward, both inter-
generational and intra-generational.

In studying the concept of class, we face two questions. Firstly, what criteria should
be used to identifjrclasses? Secondly, there is the subjective element, i.e., do people
with identical tangible material assets form a class, even if they are not perceived by
others and thenlselves as a conscious class? For the first problem of criteria, acconling
to Max Weber, the dimensions ofwealth, power and lifestyle are crucial in determiring
the class. Most sociologists geneidlyuse several criteria simultaneously &I detem~ir~ing
the class. For the second 'subjective' problem,'it is generally agreed that the issue
of class-consciousnessshould not be introduced as a definition oftlle class itself.
This is a matter for individual empirical investigation in each case.

Generally, most sociologislsa p e that in all industrial societies we find the existence
of the upper, middle and working classes. Similarly, in agrarian societies a noted
sociologist, Daniel Thorner has identified three classes in the n~ralcountryside in
India. These he called the class of 'malik', 'kisan' and 'niazdur' i.e., the proprietors
who owned land, the working peasants who owned small amount of land and the
labour class or mazdurs who did not own any land but worked on other peoples'
of people without rights. The article "slavery' in the Encyclopaedia oj'Social Social S t r a t i f i c a t i o n
Sciences ( 1 968) makesa distinctionbetween primitive, ancient, medieval and modem
slavery. Here we mention only two main types of slavery-ancient slavery and New
World slavery. Ancient slavery was prevalent in ancient Rome and Greece. Here
slaves were usually foreign prisoners of war. In New World slavery, the basis of
developnlentof slavery were colonial expansion and l-acist ideology. In this system,
the slave was designated as the master's property. The slave had no political and
social rights. He or she was compelled to work. ~ I v i n gupon slave labour, the
masters formed an aristocracy. It is said that the decline of slavery was primarily
brought about, by the inefficiency of slave labour. Some other scholars hold that
slave~ydeclined, because of continued opposition to the slave system by educated
and enlightened public in general, and the anti-slavery struggles organised by the
slaves themselves in different parts of the world at different times. The ancient
slavery was solnewhat reformed, by limiting the owher's right ofpunishnlent and
giving personal rights to the slave. The Christian C h ~ c in
I
h the Roman Empire also
supported the provision of n~anumissionto the slave.
29.3.3 Estate System
This type of social stratification, was characteristic of feudal societies of medieval
Europe. In this system we find hierarchy of social strata, which are distinguished
b d rigidly set off fiom one another by law and custom. The defining feature of the
estate system, was that the position held in the society, depended entirely in terms of
ownership of land. Though this system was less rigid than the caste system, it was
also characterised by hereditary transmission of social position. Each estate had a
clearly defined set of rights by law. At the top of the system existed a royal family,
and a hereditary military aristocracy, who were the landholders. Ranking on par
with this group were the priesthood or clergy, who were allied with the nobility.
Below this were the merchants and craftsmen, who 'were a small proportion of the
population initially, but later formed the nucleus for the emergence of the mipdle
class. At the bottom were the fiee peasants and the Serfs. Defined by a legal set of
rights and duties, each estate had a status. The differences between estates were
reflected in differences in punishments given for identical offences. Comparative
feudal systems and their connections with modem capitalist systems can be traced,
for example, in Japan.
As the nobility was supposed to protect everybody, the clergy to pray for everybody,
and the cominoner to produce food for everybody, the estates may be referred to
as a systenl of division of labour. Lastly, the estates also represented political groups.
In this way, one can say that in classical feudalism, there were only two estates, the
nobility and the clergy. It was only after the 12th century that European feudalism
had a third estate of the burghers, who first remaiqed as a distinct group and later
changed the system itself. Ifwe view the feudal estates as political groups, the serfs,
who did not possess ally political power, cannot bq considered as part of an estate.
This systenl of social stratification is best explaiilkd in terms of the nature of and
relationship between property and political authority in medieval Europe.
29.3.4 Caste System
The caste systein in India can be compared with other typewf social stratification
but it is unique in some senses to the Indian socieq. It is uniquely associated with
Indian agrarian society as well as, the urban conuntmnities like, the Aggarwals, Jains,
etc. It coilsists of essentially closed social groups larranged in a fixed hierarchical
order of superiority and inferiority. It represents the most rigid type of social
stratification in tenns of ascribed as well as socially accepted stratification.
I
point out that disi pearance of ethic identities through the process of assirnilation
is ofien hampered when the doininant groups do not allow the flow of social benefits
to certain groups, deemed to be powerless ethnic minorities. This situaticn gives
rise to ethnic contlicts. All such situations of conflict make the study of social
stratification very impoi$ant,and relevant for sociologists. That is why it is necessary
to also look briefly, at the various theories of social stratification. Here, we j'lscuss I

two major theories, namely, the functionalist theory and the conflict theory.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: a) Use the space given for your answer.
b) Compare your answer with the one given at the end of this unit.
1) What is the term given to ranks determined on the basis of age? Use one line
for your answer.
................................................................................................................
2) Naine two maill types ofslave system. Use one line for your answer.

3) Which form of social stmtification is defined il terms ofi-elationshipto ow:rsllip

of land? Use one line for your answer.

4) Name the two levels at which the caste system in India operates. Use four
lines for your answer.

5) Which ofthesix types of social stratification,is comm'onlyfound in indmtrialised

societies? Use one line for your answer.
................................................................................................................
6) Give the sociological definition of race. Use three lines for your answer.

29.4 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE

STUDY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION -
At least four social processes are associated with stratification. These processt:s
are discussed below:

i) Differentiation refe~sto allocatioilof 1-oles,rights and responsibilities. Through

differeltiation of statuses tasks are clearly defined anddistin~yislled.Motivation
and rewards are provided for fulfilment of expected roles and responsibilitiei;.
 land. (Thomer, D. in Gupta (ed.) 1992; pp. 265). On the questions of the role of Social Stratification

classes in society and their in- and interlinkages,sociologists have adopted different
approaches and developed different theories of social stratification. About these
I
approaches and theories we will tell you briefly at the ehd of this unit. You can get
more details on these issues in ESO-04 & ESO-14.
,
b

,r In industrial societies, we find that social classes coexist with status groups. This
i
I observation led Max Weber to distinguish between the two, and to look at their
linkages with each other. Max Weber argued that social classes are ranked according
to their relation to the ways of producing and acquiring goods. Status groups however
are ranked according to the ways of consuming goods. This way of understanding
f
, the difference between classes and status groups is an over simplification. Since
Weber's formulationof this distinction. many socio1oE;istshave made studies of the
i notions of class and status. At this stage it will suffice to say that analysing social
stratification in industrial societiesis a very difficult task. In the context of developing
societies, it is an even more difficult task, because in these societiessocial class is
only one coinponent and the elements of status group$,castes or caste-like groups,
racial and ethnic groups exist side by side. ,

29.3.6 Race and Ethnicity

The remaining type of social stratification is the on? based on race and ethnicity.
Race, as a biological concept, refers to a large category of people who share certain
inherited pl~ysicalcharacteristics- colour of skin, type of hail; facial feahires, size of
head etc. Anthropologistsinitially tried to arrive at a classification ofraces, but ran
into problems, because more advanced studies of racial types showed the near
absence of pure races. Thus, the latest thinking is that d l humans belong to a common
group. Recent genetic research indicate that 95 per cent of DNA (gene-rating)
n~oleculesare the samefor all l~umans.The remaining 5 per cent are responsible for
differences in appearance. Outward differences are also seen as varying within a
race rather thaw across the races. Thus, the classification of races floundered at the
scientificlevel.
For sociologists, a race is a group of people who Ne perceived by a given society,
as biologicallydifferent from the others. Thus, people are assigned to one race or
another, by public opinion which is moulded by that society's doininant group, rather
than on any scientific basis. In racist societies, for example South Africa, physical
characteristics are believed to be intrinsically related to moral, intellectual and other
non-physical attributes and abilities.
At the theoretical level, sociologiststalk about race relations as forms of stratification.
These are characterised by unequal access to wealth and power, on the basis of
physical characteristics. We find in this situation a e presence of racial ideologies in
one forin or the other,
Looking at etl~nicity,it can be said that whereas race is based on popularlyperceived
physical traits, ethnicity is based on cultural traits. Ethnic group is thus defined as a
common group of peoples with a common cultural heritage (leanled, not inherited).
~

This group inay s11a-e a common language, histoiy, national oiigin, or lifestyle.
The factor of migration on a massive scale in the lpst century, provided sociologists
an opportunity to exaillinethe fate of ethnic ideqtities. For example, the Chicago
School of Sociologists found that over several gknerations,ethnic identities were
lost and later revised. Gellner (I 964 : 163) aptly describes the situation thus : the
grandson tries to remember what the son tried to forget. However, sociologists also
Social S t r u c t u r e
Activity 2 1
Think about your local community and the kind of social inequality fouuid in it.
I Now read carefu~llythe section 29.4 of this unit and write an essay on which
1 approach you think is more suitable, the functionalist or the conflict approach
towards the uhderstanding of your community. Discuss your answer with the
students and Academic Counsellor of your Study Centre.

29.4.2 Conflict Perspective

According tothe conflict perspective, stratificationoccurs not because it is hnctional,
but because groups compete for scarce resources. Thus, rather than performing a
hction, stratificationreflects an unjust allocation of resourcesand power LI society.
,Those having power exploit the rest in the competition for resources and power in
society. Those having power exploit the rest in the competition for resources. The
unequal distribution of rewards reflects the interest of the powefil groups rather
than the societal needs. Conflict theorists also say that the use of ideology by clominant
groups justifies their dominance. Further if a system is to survive and reproduce
itself, the subordinate group must also follow the system. It would otherwise lead to
instability ofthe society.
The conflict perspective is understood easily when one looks at the history of
stratification systems. Tuniin (1969) looked at the hctional theory from a conflict
perspective. He felt that far from being functional, stratification systems are
dysfunctional. Firstly, stratification limits the opportunitiesofthe under-privi leged or
subordinate groups in society. This limitation of opportunities represents a loss of
talent to the wider society. Secondly, stratification helps to maintain the stiltusquo
even when the status quo has become dysfunctional. This is because the privileged
class is able to impose upon society the idea that tlie existing inequalities are natural,
logical and morally right. Thirdly, because stratification systems distribute rewards
unjustly,they encouragethe less privilegedto becomehostile, suspiciousand di:mtfid.
This results in social unrest and chaos. ,
Although, Marx was not a stratification theorist, much of conflict theory came up in
response to his approach to classes and class conflict. According tcl Marx,
development of material production forms the basis of progress. In order to achieve
production, classes come into being. A class, due to historical factors, gains control
of the productive forces (the means of production) in a society. The others then
become subservientto tli9class,and this leads to antagonistic relations amongclasses.
In Marxist theory, social classes have a decisive role in the process of social change.
Those attitudes make sure that widespread ideology in society is that which suits
them most. This situation gives rise to conflict between classes. Within the conflict
theory, Marx's ideas were criticised by many sociologists. Social Stratification
(ESO-04 and ESO-14) deals in detail with various aspects ofthe conflict tlieoiy.
Check Your Progress 3
Note: a) Use the space giben for your answer.

b) Compare your answer with the one given at the end of this unit.

1) Name the four social processes associated with stratification. Use two lines
for your answer.
I ii) Ranking of statuses is based on personal characteristics, trained skills and Social Stratification
consequences of tasks performed.

I i

iv)
Evallrafionof ranks depends upon values cherished by a society. Evaluation
is also based on prestige and preferability attacHed with a given status.
Reward and punishment depend upon perforpance as well as society's
evaluativeconsiderations.
A number of theoretical approaches have been put forward for studying these
processes, involved in stratification. Of these, functiqnal and conflict approaches
occupy a place of prominence. I

29.4.1 Functional Approach

Differentiation based on division of work is considered an inevitable state of &airs
in all human societies. One person obviously canndt perform all or most of the
fbnctions in a society. One has to depend upon other ptrsons for some tasks, which
one does not or cannot perform. Similarly,others d e ~ n upon d him or her for those
tasks which he or she performs. Thus, for different fiinctions,persons of different
intent and ability are required. These by sheer ldifferentialintent, ability and
perfomlance become different b m each other. Their fipctionsare valued differently.
They are rewarded according to the values attached to their functions. It is this
differential reward pattern which gives rise to stratification and hierarchy.
Functional theorists of stratification, such as Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore
stress the necessity of stratification in the hctional s$nse. They observe that it is a
universal phenomenon,and go on to argue that it must &rve a usell positive function,
and be necessary for societal survival. For them, it is the mechanism by which
society ensures, that the most perfect positions m carefdlyfilled, bythe most qualified
and able persons in society. They observe that sincethese top positions require a
substantial period of training and deferral of gratification, they also receive higher
rewards, in ternls of prestige and monetary reward$. These act as motivational
factors to perform efficiently in the job. Thus, according to this theory, the unequal
possessioil of talents is handled by the system of stratification. This theory provides
us an understanding of the present system of stratification. With the help of this
theory, the parts of a society can be related to the whole of it.
I

II
However, sociologists, such as Tumin (1969) and Dahrendorf (1 959), have
challenged the basic assumptiollsof this theory. Fok example, Davis and Moore
(1945) have been criticised for confusing social stratification with the existence of
specialised roles or division of labour. In fact, stratification refers to a system of
~~llequallyprivileged groups and individuals, rather than the differentiationbased on
division of labour.
The Davis-Moore approach is too general to explain 'the specific nature and causes
of social inequality. It ignores the possible negative Consequencesof stratification
and differential opporhmitiesfor mobility.
I

I
I

Ralph Dahrendorf(l959) observes that stratificatioboriginates from the "closely

related tiinity of nom~,sanction and power". A sociaty has an authority structure to
sustaiil its system of norms and sanctions. It has a systdm of"ilstitutiona1ised power".
It is the possessioll of this power in terms of "coercio@'and "coerced" that explains
social stratification. According to Dahrendorf the functional theory does not

I
specificallyexplain the distribution ofpower, authorityand privilege as the basis of
social stratification.
P

I
Social Structure process of attempting to change one's rank by giving up
attributes, that define acaste as low and adoptmgattributes
that are indicative of higher status, has been called
Smkritisation. \

Serf : A person, belonging to a servile feudal class, bound to

the soil and the master,
Slave : A person held in submission as the chattel of a mmter.

Social Mobility : A change in status within the ranked social levels of a

society.

29.7 FURTHER READINGS

Beteille, Andre, (ed.) 1976. Social Inequality. Penguin Books : London. 11
Bottomore T.B., 1965. Classes in Modern Sociely. George Allen and Unwin :
London.
11
Tumin, Melvin M., 1969. Social Irtrati#cation. Preiltice Hall of India : Delhi

29.8 MODEL ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS -
Check Your Progress 1
1) The three bases of social stratification are:
i) class, ii) status, iii) power.
2) Class is an economic category, based on one's income while status group is
determined by the social prestige one enjoys.
Check Your Progress 2
1) Ranks determined on the basis of age are called age-sets.
2. The two main types of slavery are - Ancient slavery and New World slavery.
3) Estate - system of social stratificationis determined on the basis of one's
relationshipto ownership of land.
4) Caste operates at two levels. Firstly, at a1All-India level, caste is understood
in terms of a four-fold classification of varnu-Brahmin, kshatriya, Vaish;va
andShudra. secondly,it operates at the village level in terms of "jati".
5) Class system is the most commonly found system of social stratification ~n
industrial societies.
6) In sociological terms, race can be defined as a group of people who are
considered by a given society as biologically different fiom the others.
Check Your Progress 3
1) The four processes ii~volvedin social stratification are :
i) differentiation, ii) ranking, iii) evaltlationand iv) rewarding
3) The functionalist theory helps one to understand the existing system of social
stratification in society. Secondly, it helps in lzlating the pats of socieh to the
whole and one part to another.
4) According to conflict theogr, social stratification occurs in society because
68
groups compete for scarce resources.
 Social S t r r t i f i c r t i o ~ ~
2) Give two ways in which the functionalist apbroach to the study of social
stratificationhelps a sociologist. Use three. linbs
1 - for your answer.
................;..............................................................................................
3) Give, in one line, the main reason why, accbrding to the conflict theory,
stratification occurs in society.

I 29.5 LET US SUM UP

I
I
After definingsocial stratificationas a system of social mnking involving relations of
superiority and inferiority, we have discussed its tlbee dimensions, namely, class,
status and power. Then we described the six types pf social stratification;namely,
i)
3
the age set system,
slave system,
I
) estate system,
I
, iv) caste system,
v) class system, and
vi) racdethnic system;
.existing in human societies. This unit outlined theoretical approaches for studying
various processes involved in social stratification. We concluded the discussion
with an account of the fhctionalist and conflict,approachesto the study of social
. stratification.

29.6 KEY WORDS

: An upper class, comprising an hereditary nobility.

: Inhabitants of borough or a town.

Commensality : The relationship involving those who habitually eat

together. I
d

Commoner : One of the ordinary deople, without a noble rank.

: The extent of one's idterest in land or a person's property
in land and tenements or a landed property.
Evaluative Ranking : Determining a rank on the basis of its high or low value.
: The relation oftloid to vassal (a person under the
protection).
Manumission : Fonnal release fiow slavery,

New World : The westernhemisphere, especially the continents of north

and south America.
Sanskritisation : At some time or the other, most castes try to raise their
rank in the local hierarchy, by giving up their attributes
and trying to adopt those of castes above them. The
I
S t ~ c i : ~Structure
l Merton, R.K., 1957. Social Theories andsocial Structure. The Free PI-ess:
Glencoe. Chapter IX, pp. 281-386.
Mitchell, J.C., 1969. Social Network in Urban Situations. Manchcster
University Press : Manchester.
Nadel, S.F., 1957. lhe Theory of Social Culture, Colen and West : London.
Newcomb, T.H., 1969. Communiy Roles in Attitude Formation. American
Sociological Review No.1.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., 1952. Sti-uct~lreand Function in Primitive Sociezy.
The free Press : Glencoe, Chapter IX, pp. 178-187.
Southall, Aidan, 1959. On Operational Theory ofRole. Human Relations 12 :
17-34.
Thorner, Daniel 1992. Agrarian Structure in Dipankar Guptq (ed.) Social
StratQkation. Oxford University Press : Delhi.
lhmin, M., 1969. SocialStratificatio?~.
Prentice Hall of India : New Delhi.
 Social Stmtifir:~titba
REFERENCES
reference.^ cited in Block 7 : (These are given here for those students who wish to
I
follow up certain points in detail)
Banton, Michael, 1965. Roles: An Introduction td the Study of Social Relations.
Tavistock Publications : London Chapters 3,4,5 and 7, pp- 42-126 and 151-
,
171. I

Bottomore, T.B. 1962. Sociology: A Guide to Prqblems andliterature. Vintage

Books : New York. I
I

Cohen, Percy, 1968. Modern Social 7heory. Heineman Educational Books

Ltd. : London. Chapter 3,34-68.

I Cuff, E.C. and Payne, G.C.F., (ed.) 1984. Perqectives in Sociology (Second
Edition). George Allen and Unwin : London. pp. 28-30.
Da hrendorf, 1959. Class and Class Conflict inlIndustria2Soceity. Routledge
and Kegan Paul : London.
Davis K., and Moore W., 1945. Sonze Principles of Stratification. American
Sociological Review 10 : 242-249.
Dumont, L., 1970. Homo Hierarchic~ds.The Upiversity of C h i c a g :~Chicago.
I

Durkheim. E., 1915. The Elementary Forms ofthe Religiozrs Life. (Trans. J.S.
Swain in 1965). The Freee Press : Glencoe.
1964 (reprint). The Division ofLahour in ~ouiety.
The Free Press : Glencoe.
Chapter I, pp. 49-69.
' 1982 (reprint). The Rz4le.s qfSociologicalMePhod.(First Published in 1895).
I
Macmillan : New York.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E., The Nzrer. Clarendoh Press : Oxford 1940.
I

Firth, Raymond, 1956. Elements of Social O&anisatior~.Walts and Company

: London.

Fortes, M., and Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 19401African Political Sy.~tem.s Oxford

University Press : London.
Gellner, E., 1964. Thoughf andchange. Weidenfield and Nicolson : London.
Leach Edmund, 1968. Social Str~lctzrre.Iq David 1. Sills (ed.) Internaitonal
Encycolopaedia ofSocial Sciences. MacmiQanCompany and the Free Press
: Glencoe.
I

~ e v Stl-auss,
i C. 1953. Socicrl Structure id A.L. Kroeher (ed) Anfhropology
Today Ail Ei ~cyclopr~dicinventory.The University of Chicago Press : Chicago
and London. pp. 524-553.
Linton, R, 1936. The Stlrdy ofMan. D. Appleton Century Co. : New York.
Chapter VlU, pp. 113-131.
Malinowski, B., 1922. Argoncr~rfs
ofthe Wfsternl'acific. Routledge & Kegan
Paul : London. 69
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Social Inequality:
Theories: Marxism
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Theories of Social Stratification.

In these Notes we are going to focus our attention on the various ways in which social
stratification has been analysed and explained by a number of different writers working within a
variety of theoretical perspectives.

In particular, we are going to examine in some detail theories of stratification that centre around
three main categories or types:

a. Social Class stratification.

b. Gender stratification.
c. Ethnic group stratification.

In this respect, it needs to be noted that we will consider each of the above as theoretically
separate forms of stratification for the purpose of outlining and evaluating both their basic nature
and the ways in which they can be theorized. In the "real world" of social interaction, of course, we
frequently find that some or all of these basic forms coexist (an idea that we will develop in a bit
more detail at a later point).

We can begin this examination of theories of social stratification by looking at the concept of social
class and, in particular at the way in which Marxist, Weberian and Functionalist, perspectives
have theorized this concept...
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Marxist Perspectives on Social Class Stratification.

A. How Social Class Is Defined.

In order to understand how both Marx in particular and Marxist writers in general have attempted
to define and theorize "social stratification" we must first look briefly at the historical background
and context of Marx's view of social stratification.

In this respect, Marx argued that Western society (which includes our own society) had developed
through four main epochs ("periods in time"):

1. Primitive communism.
2. Ancient society.
3. Feudal society.
4. Capitalist society.

As Marx argued ("The Communist Manifesto: Bourgeois and Proletarians"),

"In the earlier epochs of history we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of
society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome [an
example of the second epoch listed above] we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves;
in the Middle Ages [an example of the third epoch listed above], feudal lords, vassals, guild
masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate
gradations.

The modern bourgeois society [ that is, Capitalist society - the fourth epoch noted above]
that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class
antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms
of struggle in places of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it
has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into
two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie [the
ruling class] and proletariat [the working class]."

For Marx, only the first epoch (the "primitive communism" of various forms of hunter-gatherer
society) was free from some form of social stratification on the basis of class. This was because,
for Marx, class forms of social stratification only come into existence once people start producing
more goods than they require to fulfil their everyday needs - and hunter-gatherer societies are
basically subsistence societies; that is, people can only manage to hunt / gather enough food for
their everyday needs.

Before we start to look in greater detail at Marx's conception of class it is important to note that
each of the four epochs noted above are not hard-and-fast "stages" of human development (in the
sense that one epoch "ends" and another "begins" - which, as an aside, was the way in which
Auguste Comte ("The Positive Philosophy") theorized historical development). Rather, we need to
see each epoch merging with the one that preceded it and the one that gradually replaced it, over
a period of many hundreds of years.

You might also like to note that Marx delineated a fifth epoch, "advanced Communism" that he
argued was destined to finally replace Capitalism.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

In looking at Marx's conception of social class, therefore, we can initially note a number of points:

1. Firstly, all human societies (except, as has been noted above, the earliest forms of hunter-
gather societies) have been "class based" in some way, shape or form.

By this, at the most basic level of interpretation, Marx meant that in every known human society
there has been a fundamental division between two broad social groups, namely that:

a. One group has always owned and controlled the fundamental material resources that
are necessary for the maintenance of social existence (such things as food production, the
creation of shelter, clothing and so forth).

b. One group has not owned or controlled the production of such things.

In modern Britain we can express the above most clearly in terms of the basic class structure of
society thus:

a. Those who own and control the means of production (which involves ownership of such
things as land, factories, financial institutions and the like):

This is the Capitalist class (or "bourgeoisie").

b. Those who own nothing but their ability to sell their labour power (that is, their ability to
work) in return for wages:

This is the Working class (or "proletariat").

2. From the above we can note two important points:

a. In any society the economic sphere (that is, the productive process involving the creation of
goods and services for distribution and exchange) is always the most basic, fundamental and
ultimately most significant sphere because it is only through economic activity that people can
produce the things they need for their physical survival.

In short, economic production, since it is vital for the reproduction of human life, is always
the most fundamental activity in which people engage.

b. A its most basic, there are always two major classes in any society according to Marx (the
aforementioned bourgeoisie and proletariat).

We need to be clear that Marx was not claiming that there are only ever two classes in any society
(as we will see in a moment, it is possible for numerous "classes" to exist in society); rather, he
was saying that:

a. Only under communism could there be a single class (since communism involves the
"dictatorship of the proletariat").

b. The "two class" model is simply the most basic and fundamental form of class society.

That is, he was arguing that, however many classes it may be possible to delineate empirically in
a society, at the root of any society stands these two great classes defined in terms of their
relationship to the means of production.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

3. Marx was aware that there could be individual movement ("social mobility") between the two
great classes he theorized. Capitalists could be driven out of business and into poverty / wage
labour by competition, just as members of the working class could raise capital ("finance"), create
their own successful business and grow rich.

However, thinking about these individual events in the grand scheme of things, they recede into
insignificance, in social terms, for two main reasons according to Marx:

a. This type of movement tends to be very limited.

b. It doesn't alter the fundamental principle of Marx's concept of class - it doesn't really matter very
much who is a member of the bourgeoisie and who is a member of the proletariat. All that really
matters is that these two classes exist.

Having said this, it will become evident when we look at the question of class cultures and class
consciousness that social mobility may be significant in terms of these, and related, concepts...

4. We can see from the above that, according to Marx's view of things, Capitalism as an economic
system of production, distribution and exchange possesses a "logic of its own", regardless of who
individual members of the bourgeoisie actually are. The "economic logic" to which Marx refers
involves such things as:

a. The need to make a profit.

b. The need to exploit others in order to make profits.

In this respect, to be a "capitalist" involves, by definition, both the exploitation of others and the
keeping of profits for "personal" use / disposal. In short, Marx was arguing that, logically,
Capitalism as an economic system cannot exist / survive without this profit motive and
exploitation.

5. In the above respect, we are presented with a picture of class stratification that is apparently
contradictory:

a. Within the overall parameters of the system there can, theoretically, be as much or as
little social movement between classes as possible, yet:

b. The fundamental relationship between social classes (as opposed to particular

individuals within each class) will remain the same.

In simple terms, all Marx is saying in the above respect is that it doesn't really matter very much in
terms of society as a whole who does the exploiting (whether they do it pleasantly or cruelly, for
example). All that really matters is that exploitation of one class by another takes place.

To understand this point more clearly we have to understand that, for Marx, social classes are
objective categories in any society other than a communist one. In this respect, the argument is
that we can define social classes (on the basis of people's relationship to a production process)
independently of the individuals who belong to it.

This doesn't mean that social classes can exist without people (an "error of reification"). Rather, it
means that in order to be defined as belonging to a particular class individuals have to obey the
economic logic to which I referred above. In simple terms:

A Capitalist who doesn't make profits will not be a capitalist for long...
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

As I have suggested at various points in the above, Marx made a clear distinction between two
things:

a. The objective definition of social class (in this instance, the individual's relationship to
the process of production) and

b. The subjective definition of social class (whether or not an individual believes

themselves to belong to the class into which they can be objectively allocated).

Marx was not alone in making this distinction (although he is frequently accused of ignoring or
overlooking the social significance of the latter). It is a distinction that appears through the
literature of any discussion of class (from whatever perspective) and, for this reason, it will be
more useful to discuss it in greater detail in the Study Pack that covers the question of "class
consciousness".

Before we start to look at the implications of Marx's analysis of social stratification for both social
change and social stability, we can recap and expand some of the main features and implications
of Marx's basic arguments in the following terms:

1. All societies are characterized by the struggle between social classes; between, on the one
hand, those who own and control the means of economic production and those who do not.
Historically, for example, this basic relationship (or "dichotomy" - simply defined as a distinction
between two things) has been expressed by Marx in terms of:

a. Ancient societies - Master and slave.

b. Feudal societies - Lord and serf.
c. Capitalist societies - Bourgeoisie and proletariat (employer and employee).

2. This relationship (between owners and non-owners) is one that is both dependent and
inherently conflictual.

It is a "mutually dependent" relationship because, for example:

Capitalists require people to work for them in order to create profits.

Workers need capitalists in order to earn money for their physical survival.

It is also a "conflictual" relationship because, according to Marx, each class has different
basic interests:

It is in the interest of a capitalist class to keep it ownership of the means of

production (to attempt, in short to make the most profit it can out of its relationship
with the proletariat it exploits).

It is in the interests of a working class to seize ownership of the means of

production - to replace a capitalist class with a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Question:

Briefly explain why it might be in the interests of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to
own the means of production in society.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

3. This "contradictory relationship" of dependency and conflict helps to explain both:

a. The basis of social stability in society (how things remain the same) and

b. The basis of social change.

Marx called this contradiction a "dialectical relationship" (a union of opposites), but it's perhaps
easier to think of it, in these terms, as a kind of "love / hate" relationship perhaps...

The "Two-Class model" of Social Stratification: Closing Observations.

Marx was aware that whilst it was both theoretically and logically evident that two basic classes
exist in any society, the "empirical reality" of class stratification in most societies was substantially
different. In this respect Marx was aware that:

a. Modes of economic production changed more rapidly than people's ability to adapt to such
changes (for example, even the gradual transition between a feudal mode of production - based
upon land ownership and agriculture - and a capitalist mode of production - based upon the
ownership of capital and industry - meant that class groups would still exist for a time in the latter
as a left over from the former.

For example, even as factory production started to become the norm in the early industrial period
(leading to the emergence of an urban working class), a peasant class based around pre-
capitalist, agricultural forms of production would still exist for a time.

Such classes were seen by Marx to be "transitional classes", in the sense that they would
eventually disappear once the new mode of production had established its dominant position.

b. Secondly, and more importantly, splits / divisions of greater or lesser importance were
acknowledged to exist within the two broad classes.

For example, within the bourgeoisie the interests of:

1. Manufacturing capital (those who owned factories and produced commodities for sale) and

2. Finance capital (bankers, financiers and so forth),

were frequently at odds with one another since Manufacturing Capital was involved with the long-
term creation and reproduction of profits whilst Finance capital did not produce anything but
created profits through short-term lending to industry.

Additionally, we could also point to the vast difference between Trans-national companies (that is,
companies which operate in more than one country) and small businesses.

Conversely, amongst the proletariat we can find clear differences between:

a. Those employed in minor supervisory roles and

b. Those whose work involves no supervision of others.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

B. How Social Order is Created and Maintained.

Given that, according to Marx, class conflict is inevitable, we need to understand how social order
maintained in class stratified societies. In order to do this we need to look at how Marxists
generally understand the basic structure of social systems.

1. As noted above, social systems can be classified in terms of two basic divisions:

a. Their economic base (the system of production that gives rise to two basic classes - those who
own the means of production and those who sell their labour power).

b. Their political and ideological superstructure that surrounds and "rests upon" the economic
infrastructure.

In simple terms, the economic base of a social system consists of the various forces of production
which produce particular types of social relations to the production process. Thus:

In feudal society the forces of production relate to agricultural forms of economic production,
ownership of land and so forth. The basic social relations of production that this produces is the
distinction between Lord and Peasant.

In capitalist society the forces of production relate to industrial forms of economic production, the
ownership of capital and so forth. This gives rise to social relations of production based around the
distinction between Employer and Employee.

As this example illustrates:

A change in the forces of production (for example, from agriculture to industry) produces a change
in the social relations to production (for example, from a Lord / Peasant relationship to an
Employer / Employee relationship).

This change in social relationships as the forces of production change is important not just in class
terms (since there is still, according to Marx, the basic division of society into two broad classes)
but also in terms of the political and ideological relationship between the two classes.

In the first instance, for example, peasants had few political rights in feudal society and they had
no legal right to organize politically to challenge the ruling ideas in society (how it was organized
and the like).

In the second instance, because the relationship changes to a simple one of legal contract (the
employer has no legal rights over his / her employee as a person - wage earners are not slaves,
for example), it is possible for a system of political rights to develop, involving ideological
challenges to the ruling ideas in society (a classic and obvious example in our society being the
rise of Trade Unions to represent the interests of the working class and the emergence of the
Labour Party as the political representative of organized labour.

2. The superstructure of a social system consists of two related spheres:

a. The State (which involves things like a system of government, judicial systems, a Civil Service
and the like). This is the political sphere.

b. Ideological institutions (which involves things like religion, the mass media, education and so
forth). This is the ideological sphere (the realm of ideas about the nature of the social world).
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Marx argued that the economic infrastructure was the most important division in society because:

a. It involved the production, distribution and exchange of the essential requirements for living
(beginning with basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter and ending with all kinds of
"necessary" consumer goods - televisions, cars, videos and so forth).

b. Systems of government, communication and the like are dependent upon the way in which a
society organizes itself to provide these essential requirements.

If this seems a little unclear, we can make the relationship easier to understand by using an
analogy...

Base and Superstructure: An analogy.

Let's imagine that "society" is like a building.

Any building, if it is to remain standing, requires some kind of foundation and, for Marx, the
"foundations" upon which "society" stands was its economic base.

In this respect, foundations influence the type of building that can be erected. A 50-storey office
block, for example, requires deeper and stronger foundations than a single storey house and,
whilst there is nothing to stop you building an office block on foundations designed to support a
bungalow, such a building would rapidly collapse since its foundations would not be sufficient to
support its weight...

Thinking in terms of foundations, therefore, such things are, by their very nature:

a. Difficult to observe and

b. Difficult to change

once they are established since they are, of course, buried in the ground.

Once you have established your foundations, you are able to build your offices, house or whatever
and this is analogous to the superstructure of a society. As we have noted, the social
superstructure has two main dimensions:

a. Politics:

We can compare this dimension to the look and overall shape of a building, insofar as within the
basic limitations imposed by your foundations you can design and build a variety of different-
looking buildings.

b. Ideology:

This dimension is comparable to the various ways in which it is possible for you to furnish your
building once it has been built. People who live in the same type of building, for example, may
have very different ideas about how it can be furnished, the use to which each room can be put
and so forth.

Clearly, if you think about it, there are constraints upon what can be done to the building in the
above respect, since such factors as room size and number, the way in which the building has
been designed and so forth will all be important factors here.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Thinking about things in this way:

1. Politics, ideology and economics all combine to shape the overall look and feel of society (just
as the foundations, house design and furnishings all combine to shape the look and feel of a
building).

2. Some things are more permanent and difficult to change than others...

Think about the three dimensions I've just noted (politics, ideology and economics) and rank them
in terms of how easy / difficult it might be to change them (starting with the easiest).

As you will have noted:

a. Ideas are easier to change than

b. Political systems, which are easier to change than
c. Economic systems.

To continue the analogy, we can express and develop the above in the following ways:

1. Ideology or "rearranging the furniture"...

A building:

If you want to change the look of your house you can rearrange the furniture, add new pieces and
get rid of old pieces. You can change the room usage (a bedroom could become a study, for
example).

A society:

In social terms, you could do things like change the way in which children are educated (for
example, in Britain we have gradually changed from an education system that segregates
children on the basis of the idea that they have different "academic and vocational aptitudes"
(Grammar / Secondary Modern schools) to one that involves the education of all children in the
same basic type of school (a Comprehensive system)).

Similarly, in politics the equivalent of "rearranging the furniture" might be to replace our current
"first past the post" system with one of proportional representation.

This "ideological rearrangement" will, of course, take time and it may involve a great deal of
debate / argument between members of the household, but it is possible to do - mainly because
by rearranging things you are not attempting to alter the basic structure of your building.
Additionally, two points need to be noted:

a. There are clear structural limits to what can be done "inside the building".
b. Changing the appearance of the building does not alter its purpose.

2. Politics or "knocking it down and starting again":

A building:

If you don't like things like the overall look and size of your building you have the option of
knocking it down and rebuilding it. This, of course, would be a fairly radical step since by
demolishing your building you will destroy some or all of its contents (which will cost you time and
money to replace).
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

If you do not change the foundations on which the building originally stood, there will, as we have
noted, be restrictions upon the type of structure that you can build. In this respect, since the
foundations will be unchanged you can only build something that is broadly the same as the
previous building - although many things can, of course, be changed.

A society:

In social terms, political changes that might be analogous to the fairly drastic step of knocking your
house down and rebuilding it might be something like the replacement of a democratic political
system by one based upon dictatorship (or vice versa). Clearly, such a change would have
important / significant social consequences.

As you can imagine, a change of political system (just like the decision to knock down your house
and rebuild it differently) is not something that is likely to happen without a great deal of conflict. It
will, in short, be more difficult to put into operation that the simple decision to change some feature
of the established political system.

3. Economics or "digging up the foundations"...

A building:

If you decide that you want to replace your one-storey building with a 50 storey building then it is
clear that you will have to dig-up and relay the foundations. This will, of course, involve
demolishing both the original building and its contents. It is a long, arduous, task that is likely to
take you a long time...

A society:

In social terms, the above is the equivalent of a change in the mode of economic production that is
dominant in a society at any given time. For example, in Marxist terms, a change from a feudal to
a capitalist mode of production. As with digging-up the foundations of a building, this replacement
cannot happen "overnight" - it will take a long time to fully achieve.

As should be evident, the decision to rebuild from the foundations upwards is not one that is going
to be taken without a great deal of conflict and resistance, primarily because it will affect the lives
(both present and future) of the building's occupants in a substantial way.

Viewed in these terms, it is not very difficult to decide which of the three areas listed above are
going to:

a. Be most resistant to change.

b. Create the greatest level of conflict concerning whether or not they should be changed.

If we now turn to think more specifically about how social order is maintained, we can continue the
analogy by imagining yourself as a family living in the building we have created.

a. Changing the layout of the rooms might easily be based upon a general consensus about the
need to rearrange things.

b. The decision to knock the building down and rebuild it is a fairly drastic step that cannot be
taken lightly (and may involve overcoming a great deal of resistance to change).

c. The decision to dig-up the foundations and build something completely different is likely to
involve a great deal of conflict.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Now, translate the above into a "family" that involves millions of people (a society in which
everyone has an interest) and you should start to appreciate why:

1. It is difficult to instigate and see through fundamental social changes that involve drastic
changes in economic organization.

2. Changes in economic organization will produce political changes (the way in which people
relate to one another), just as building and populating an office block on the ground where a small
house once stood will involve changes in political relationships (there will be more people under
the same roof, the new building will serve a different purpose to the old building and so forth).

3. Order and stability in a society can persist even though people are in perpetual conflict (just as
long as radical changes are not made to the economic foundations of society). Thus, in social
terms, people can argue and conflict over wage rates, the environment, political representation
and so forth, just as people might argue and conflict over the best position for a new piece of
furniture or the use to which a spare room might be put...

C. How Societies Change.

In terms of the analogies that I've used in the attempt to help you to understand the difference
between "base and superstructure" in Marxist thinking you have to be careful not to be mislead
into stretching an analogy too far. For example, it is easy to be mislead into seeing the social
world as being rather static and unchanging (like a building). Unlike a building made from inert
(that is, non-living) material, society is constantly changing, primarily because it consists of living,
thinking, people who are constantly changing and adapting their personal relationships. If you
want to persist with the analogy, it is as if "society" is constructed from living materials, each brick
in the wall having its own store of experiences and ideas...

However, if we drop this analogy (since it has served its purpose and, in this new context is
potentially confusing), we need to understand how Marxists theorize social change since, as you
should be aware from your wider reading and experience, societies both evolve over time and,
most importantly, undergo revolutionary social changes. Marxism attempts to account for the
process of social change by using the idea of class conflict as the social dynamic that underpins
such change.

In this respect, in basic (over-simplified) terms, each class in a society, as we have seen, has
apparently different economic interests which they attempt to pursue. In this respect, basic
"conflicts of interest" are always likely to occur since, if two classes want the same thing (control
over the means of production) and only one can obtain it, then the basis for conflict is present...

Additionally, Marx used the notion of "contradictions" in the economic sphere to help explain both
social change and social order. In this respect, again as we have seen previously, a fundamental
contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is that although they will necessarily conflict
in terms of their basic interests, they also need each other in capitalist society - the former in order
to have people to exploit and make profits from, the latter in order to get money to by various
commodities.

In another respect Marx noted a contradiction between the economic and political spheres of
capitalism:

Capitalist economics are based upon the idea of contracts which people necessarily enter into of
their own "free will" (Marx did of course recognize that "free will" was actually the product of
various social pressures, experiences and constraints), the most fundamental of which is the
contract between an employer and employee. In return for work (the ability to make an employee
productive in some way), the employer exchanges a wage.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Of necessity, in order for capitalism to remain a dynamic system of production, an employee has
to be legally free to "choose" an employer (and vice versa). There are a number of reasons for this
situation:

a. It was necessity, in the early stages of capitalist development, because it provided a means of
breaking the old feudal system of "tied relationships" between the nobility and the peasantry.

b. It forces employers to "compete" for labour.

c. It allows employers to "hire and fire" employees as and when necessary (during cyclical periods
of economic expansion and contraction, for example). In this sense, the employer is hiring an
individual's "ability to work" (their "labour power") rather than the individual themselves (an
employer does not own the people they employ).

d. The employer does not have to pay the "social costs" of maintaining a workforce (the employee,
for example, pays their own "work-related" costs - food, clothing, shelter and the like - out of their
wages). For a more-detailed discussion of this idea you need to refer to the "Family Life" Study
Packs.

In the above respect, therefore, the "contradiction" we can note is between:

a. The political status of individuals (in terms of, for example, their freedom to sell their labour
power to anyone for as much money as possible) outside the workplace.

b. The political status of individuals inside the workplace (since an employee has to be physically
present in order to sell their labour power - the two cannot be empirically separated, even though
we can separate them theoretically for our convenience).

In the former there is, for example, such things as legal and political equality, whilst in the latter
there is no such equality. An employer buys the right to dominate labour within the workplace.

The contradiction here, of course, is that an employee is both the political equal of the employer
whilst also being subservient to him / her...

Where contradictions exist, Marx argues that the potential for conflict also exists; where two or
more things are opposed then conflict is always possible.

Where Marxism in particular differs from other forms of Conflict theory (for example, Weberian
sociology or Feminism) is in terms of the primary importance it gives to economic conflicts.

Economic conflict, for Marxists, is seen to be the single most important form of conflict in society,
whereas Weber, for example, stresses the importance of economic, political and ideological
conflicts and feminism stresses the central importance of gender conflicts.

For Marxists, therefore, various forms of social change are brought into existence by the clash of
interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as each seeks to achieve the best it can
within the capitalist system...
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Modern Marxism.

Although we have, of necessity, concentrated on the work of Karl Marx in order to establish some
of the basic theoretical principles and concepts employed by Marxist sociology, you need to be
aware that "Marxism" is a fairly dynamic theoretical perspective insofar as it is constantly being
amended and reinterpreted by writers as diverse as:

Eric Ohlin Wright (USA).

Antonio Gramsci (Italy)
Louis Althussser (France)
Nicos Poulantzas (Greece)
Ralph Milliband (UK).

In this respect, the basic two-class model proposed by Marx has been variously reinterpreted in
the light of developments in the 20th century (some of which we will discuss in more detail at the
appropriate points in further Study Packs). Modern Marxists have tended to refine Marx's model
by subdividing the bourgeoisie and proletariat into various sub-classes or "class fractions" as the
neo-Marxist Nicos Poulantzas has termed them ("Classes in Contemporary Capitalism", 1975).

Most people, for example, will be familiar with the classical division of the class structure into three
classes:

Upper,
Middle and
Lower,

although we could add two further classes - one at the top (the Aristocracy) and one at the bottom
(the "lumpenproletariat" or "underclass").

Although Marx tended to argue that such sub-classes would disappear in late-capitalism
(immediately prior to a Communist revolution), any empirical analysis of class must take account
of the existence of various sub-divisions within the class structure.

Rather than discuss modern Marxism in any further detail, however, it is probably more
appropriate to consider modern developments as and when they are applicable in subsequent
Notes.
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Evaluation.

As you are no doubt aware, Marx's ideas have been the subject of intense debate both within
sociology and, of course, wider society (mainly because of the important political aspect of Marx's
theoretical perspective). There are a number of criticisms at which we can briefly look, some of
which are more valid than others...

1. Marx was politically biased:

This is true but not a very telling criticism for at least two main reasons:

a. "Bias" is only significant if it involves the attempt to misinterpret / misinform - otherwise every
statement about the world is "biased", in the sense that it involves holding one viewpoint to be
superior to another.

b. All knowledge involves some form of interpretation and it seems difficult to conceive of any
theory of social stratification that could not, on the above terms, be considered biased.

Furthermore, to argue that one view of stratification is more "politically biased" than another is to
imply that there is a theory, somewhere, which is incontrovertibly true - and this is not the case...

2. Marx was an "economic determinist":

By this is meant the idea that relations in the economic sphere of human activity determine the
shape and form of all other human relationships. As Marx was well aware (especially in relation to
his discussion of class consciousness - something we will look at in some detail in a later Study
Pack), the influences upon human behaviour are many and varied - and economic influences and
pressures are but one (albeit very important) influence.

3. Not all societies are "class societies":

This is a more serious criticism in terms of Marx's theoretical analysis, since it is evident that
Marxists have had problem explaining something like the Caste system operating in India (a
system that seems to be built around religious status) in class terms.

In a slightly different way, some feminists (particularly radical feminists) have argued that Marxists
have paid too little attention to stratification based upon gender (the concept of a "sex-class", for
example, whereby males and females are seen to have different political, economic and
ideological interests). In this respect, the criticism is not so much that societies are not "class
stratified"; rather, it is that Marxists have tended to use a definition of class that encompasses
purely economic relationships.

4. Is Communism "inevitable"?

Since this is a question that cannot be logically answered until communism comes to pass (if
communism does occur then it will have been shown to be inevitable and if it doesn't occur then it
might still be inevitable at some unspecified point in the future).

More importantly, perhaps, writers such as Sir Karl Popper have argued that the theories
employed by Marxists are non-scientific because they do not admit to the possibility of ever being
falsified. Like the religious leader who argues that belief in God will result in the establishment of
the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, Marxists are accused by writers like Popper of failing to produce
theories that can be tested, as opposed to theories that are little more than articles of faith...
Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

5. Finally, there is debate - both within and outside Marxism - concerning the significance of both
class fractions and the status of the "middle classes" generally. Writers such as Saunders ("Social
Class and Social Stratification") from a right wing perspective argue that Marxists such as
E.O.Wright and Poulantzas have failed to establish a theoretical basis for the existence and
continuance of a middle class within Marxist theory (whilst, conversely, such writers from a left
wing perspective argue that they have satisfactorily explained the continued existence of this
class...).
 Max Weber theory in social stratification

Max Weber was strongly influenced by Marx’s ideas, but rejected the possibility of effective communism,
arguing that it would require an even greater level of detrimental social control and bureaucratization than
capitalist society. Moreover, Weber criticized the dialectical presumption of proletariat revolt, believing it to be
unlikely. Instead, he developed the three-component theory of stratification and the concept of life chances .
fungsionalisMarxis

Weber supposed there were more class divisions than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from both
functionalist and Marxist theories to create his own system. He emphasized the difference between class, status,
and party, and treated these as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on social
action.Working around half a century later than Marx, Weber claimed there to be in fact four main classes: the
upper class , the white collar workers , the petite bourgeoisie , and the manual working class . Barat Weber’s
theory more-closely resembles modern Western class structures, although economic status does not seem to
depend strictly on earnings in the way Weber envisioned.

Weber derived many of his key concepts on social stratification by examining the social structure of Germany .
modal He noted that contrary to Marx’s theories, stratification was based on more than simply ownership of
capital . Weber examined how many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth yet had strong
political power. Many wealthy families lacked prestige and power, for example, because they were Jewish .
Weber introduced three independent factors that form his theory of stratification hierarchy; class, status, and
power:

• Class : A person’s economic position in a society. Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the
supreme factor in stratification. proletariat Weber noted how managers of corporations or industries control
firms they do not own; Marx would have placed such a person in the proletariat .

• Status : A person’s prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber noted that political power was not
rooted in capital value solely, but also in one’s individual status. Poets or saints, for example, can possess
immense influence on society with often little economic worth.

• Power : A person’s ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For example, individuals in state
jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation , or a member of the United States Congress ,
may hold little property or status but they still hold immense power.

Max Weber, including one between sociologists who do not agree with the use of purely economic dimensions
to determine the social stratification. Sociology Giddens in his book shows similarities between Marx and
Weber:

“Like Marx, Weber regarded society as characterized by conflict over power and resources”
Simultaneously the Difference

“Although Weber accepted Marx’s view that class is founded on objectively given economic factors as
important in class formation than were recognized by Marx”

Both Marx and Weber both see that class is the stratification of society based on the economic dimension. But
as we have said previously that Weber includes social scientists who reject the use of dimensions of economic
stratification solely in social stratification of society.
According to Weber, social stratification is not as simple as to be explained by the class, he adds in his
description of power in society that the differentiation of society can be viewed via the status groups, parties
and classes.

Class according to Weber is the number of people who have similarities in terms of opportunities for life or fate
(life chances). Opportunities to live person is determined by economic interests in the form of control over
goods and the opportunity to earn income in the labor market or commodity market. People who are in the same
class have in common is called a class situation.

Classroom situation is an equation in terms of opportunities for inventory control, personal life experience, or
way of life. Categories basis for distinguishing the class is their wealth, and class are factors that create
economic interests, at this point Marx and Weber’s class concept is the same, namely the class distinctions and
factors that encourage the creation of the class.

Another dimension is the dimension used Weber is honor. Human grouped in group status. Group status is a
person who is in equal status situations, where people are chances of survival are determined by the size of
honor, look at differentiation and courtiers sultan in Yogyakarta. The equation of honor expressed performance
status equation lifestyle. In the area of this association can be a restriction in the association with a person
whose status is lower. In addition to barring him in the association, according to Weber’s status groups
characterized by the presence of the privileges and monopolies on goods and material and an ideal opportunity.
In terms of lifestyle, this we can see from the style of consumption.

Besides the economic dimension of distinction and honor Weber says that communities are also differentiated
on the basis of its power. Power according to Weber is an opportunity for someone or some people to realize
their own desires through a communal action even though experiencing opposition from people who
participated in the communal action. Form of communal action is oriented towards the party which gained
power.

Max Weber’s Methodology

Max Weber argued against abstract theory, and he favored an approach to sociological inquiry that generated its
theory from rich, systematic, empirical, historical research. This approach required, first of all, an examination
of the relationships between, and the respective roles of, history and sociology in inquiry. Weber argued that
sociology was to develop concepts for the analysis of concrete phenomena, which would allow sociologists to
then make generalizations about historical phenomena. History, on the other hand, would use a lexicon of
sociological concepts in order to perform causal analysis of particular historical events, structures, and
processes. In scholarly practice, according to Weber, sociology and history are interdependent.
Weber contended that understanding, or Verstehen , was the proper way of studying social phenomena. Derived
from the interpretive practice known as hermeneutics, the method of Verstehen strives to understand the
meanings that human beings attribute to their experiences, interactions, and actions. Weber construed Verstehen
as a methodical, systematic, and rigorous form of inquiry that could be employed in both macro- and micro-
sociological analysis.

Weber’s formulation of causality stresses the great variety of factors that may precipitate the emergence of
complex phenomena such as modern capitalism. Moreover, Weber argued that social scientists, unlike natural
scientists, must take into account the meanings that actors attribute to their interactions when considering
causality. Weber, furthermore, sought a middle ground between Nomothetic (general laws) and idiographic
(idiosyncratic actions and events) views in his notion of a probabilistic adequate causality.

Weber’s greatest contribution to the conceptual arsenal of sociology is known as the ideal type. The ideal type
is basically a theoretical model constructed by means of a detailed empirical study of a phenomenon. An ideal
type is an intellectual construct that a sociologist may use to study historical realities by means of their
similarities to, and divergences from, the model. Note that ideal types are not utopias or images of what the
world ought to look like.

Weber urged sociologists to reflect on the role of values in both research and the classroom. When teaching, he
argued, sociologists ought to teach students the facts, rather than indoctrinating them to a particular political or
personal point of view. Weber did argue, however, that the values of one’s society often help to decide what a
scholar will study. He contended that, while values play this very important role in the research process, they
must be kept out of the collection and interpretation of data.

Max Weber’s Substantive Sociology

Max Weber’s sociology is fundamentally a science that employs both interpretive understanding and causal
explanations of social action and interaction. His typology of the four types of social action is central to
comprehending his sociology. According to Weber, social action may be classified as means-ends rational
action, value-rational action, affectual action, or traditional action. Any student of Weber must keep in mind
that these are ideal types.

Weber developed a multidimensional theory of stratification that incorporated class, status, and party. Class is
determined by one’s economic or market situation (ie, life chances), and it is not a community but rather a
possible basis for communal action. Status is a matter of honor, prestige, and one’s style of life. Parties,
according to Weber, are organized structures that exist for the purposes of gaining domination in some sphere of
social life. Class, status, and party may be related in many ways in a given empirical case, which provides the
sociologist with a very sophisticated set of conceptual tools for the analysis of stratification and power.

Weber also made a profound contribution to the study of obedience with his ideal types of legitimate
domination or authority. Rational-legal authority rests on rules and law. Traditional authority rests on belief in
established practices and traditions – ie, authority is legitimate because it is exercised the way it has always
been exercised. Charismatic authority rests on belief in the extraordinary powers or qualities of a leader. All of
these forms of authority must take into account the point of view of those obeying commands.
Moreover, each form of authority is associated with a variety of structural forms of organization and
administration. Legal authority, for example, is often associated with bureaucracy, while traditional authority is
associated with gerontocracy, patriarchalism, patrimonialism, and feudalism. Charismatic authority may be
associated with a charismatic form of organization. The dilemma of charismatic authority, however, consists of
the difficulty of maintaining charisma when the charismatic leader dies. In other words, charismatic
organizations tend to routinize charisma, which invariably gives rise to either traditional or rational-legal
authority.

Weber also argued that rationalization is a long-term historical process that has transformed the modern world.
His typology of forms of rationality is central to this argument. He argued that there are four types of
rationality: practical, theoretical, formal, and substantive. He was most concerned with processes of formal and
substantive rationalization, especially as propelled by capitalism and bureaucracy. Weber argued that
rationalization has occurred in many spheres, including the economy, law, religion, politics, the city, and art.

Weber’s arguments regarding rationalization are exemplified in his studies of religion and capitalism. These
sophisticated and voluminous studies inquire into the ways in which religious ideas, the spirit of capitalism, and
capitalism as an economic system, are interrelated. In short, according to Weber, Calvinism as a rational,
methodical system of religious beliefs and practices was an important factor in the emergence of modern
capitalism in the Western world. The economic ethics of other religions, such as Hinduism and Confucianism,
inhibited the emergence of modern capitalism in India and China. Once modern capitalism emerged in the
Western world, however, it spread the effects of rationalization worldwide.

While Weber’s work has had a profound impact on sociology – as well as other disciplines – it is not without its
critics. Some critics question the consistency and applicability of Weber’s method of Verstehen . Others are
puzzled by Weber’s methodological individualism as it is applied to macro-sociology. Some critics have
rebuked Weber for failing to offer any alternatives to rationalization, capitalism, and bureaucracy. Finally, many
critics decry Weber’s unflagging pessimism about the future of rationalization and bureaucracy.
 Structural Functionalism
Although popular, even dominant, after World War II, structural functionalism is today generally of only
historical interest. Emerging as an offshoot of organicism, structural functionalists were mainly societal
functionalists who were interested in large-scale social structures and institutions within society, how they
interrelate, and their constraining effects on actors.

One of the earliest and better known applications of structural functionalism was thefunctional theory of
stratification. This theory argued that stratification was universal and necessary for society, and that it was
therefore functional. Stratification here refers to positions rather than individuals and to the way that individuals
are placed in the appropriate position. Since some positions are more important, more pleasant, and require
different skills, a system of stratification is necessary to make sure all roles are fulfilled. Much like other
versions of structural functionalism, this theory is criticized as conservative and lacking in empirical support.

Talcott Parsons

The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism was Talcott Parsons (1902-1979).
The heart of Parsons's theory is built on the four functional imperatives, also known as the AGIL system:

1. The adaptive function, whereby a system adapts to its environment.

2. The goal-attainment function, i.e., how a system defines and achieves its goals.
3. The integrative function, or the regulation of the components of the system.
4. Latency, or pattern maintenance function, i.e., how motivation and the dimensions of culture that create
and sustain motivation are stimulated.

Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional imperative: thebehavioral
organism performs the adaptive function; the personality system performs goal attainment; the social
system performs the integrative function; and the cultural systemperforms pattern maintenance. Parsons saw
these action systems acting at different levels of analysis, starting with the behavioral organism and building to
the cultural system. He saw these levels hierarchically, with each of the lower levels providing the impetus for
the higher levels, with the higher levels controlling the lower levels.

Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he investigated it using his theory based
on a number of assumptions, primarily that systems are interdependent; they tend towards equilibrium; they
may be either static or involved in change; that allocation and integration are particularly important to systems
in any particular point of equilibrium; and that systems are self-maintaining. These assumptions led him to
focus primarily on order but to overlook, for the most part, the issue of change.

The basic unit of Parsons's social system is the status-role complex. Actors are seen as a collection of statuses
and roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons's interest was in the large-scale components of social systems,
such as collectivities, norms, and values. Parsons also thought that social systems had a number of functional
prerequisites, such as compatibility with other systems, fulfillment of the needs of actors, support from other
systems, inducing adequate levels of participation from its members, controlling deviance, controlling conflict,
and language.

Parsons was particularly interested in the role of norms and values. He focused on the socialization process,
whereby society instills within individuals an outlook in which it is possible for them to pursue their own self-
interest while still serving the interests of the system as a whole. It was through socialization that Parsons
believed that actors internalized the norms of society. Physical or coercive systems of control were seen as only
a secondary line of defense.
The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance, Parsons believed that culture had the
capability of becoming a part of other systems, such as norms and values in the social system. Culture is defined
as a patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of orientation to actors, internalized aspects of the
personality system, and institutionalized patterns. The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other
action systems.

The personality system generates personality, defined as the organized orientation and motivation of action in
the individual actor, built by need-dispositions and shaped by the social setting. Again Parsons presents a
passive view of actors.

In order to deal with change, Parsons turned to a form of evolutionary theory, focusing on differentiation and
adaptive upgrading. He suggested three evolutionary stages: primitive, intermediate, and modern. This
perspective suffers from a number of flaws, primarily because it sees change as generally positive and does not
deal with the process of change, but rather points of equilibrium across periods of change.

One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is with the concept of the generalized
media of interchange. Although this concept is somewhat ambiguous, it can be thought of as resources,
particularly symbolic resources, for which there is a universal desire (e.g., money, influence, or political power).
The suggestion that individuals might act to influence the social distribution of such resources (as media
entrepreneurs) adds dynamism to what is often seen as a static theory.

Robert Merton

Robert Merton(1910-2003) attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses within structural functionalism.
Specifically, he criticized the underlying assumptions of functionalism and added complexity to how structural
functionalism dealt with the relationship between structures and functions. Dispensing with the notion that all
parts of the system are functional, highly integrated, and indispensable, he created a system of concepts to deal
with the ways in which structures may be related to the whole. For instance, he suggested that some social facts
might be dysfunctional, meaning they may have negative consequences for other social facts. Overall, he
thought that it was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking into account dysfunctions,
functions, and nonfunctions. He also added additional complexity by asserting that this sort of analysis may be
performed at various levels of functional analysis, as "functions" might be a matter of perspective. For instance,
slavery was functional for some and dysfunctional for others.

Merton was also concerned with the intended and unintended functions of structures, ormanifest and latent
functions, and their unanticipated consequences. He added nuance to structural functionalism by noting that
dysfunctional structures can exist within systems, depending on their relationship to other systems. Thus not all
structures are positive, nor are all of them indispensable.

Merton also took up Emile Durkheim's (1857-1917) notion of anomie. He suggested that when individuals
cannot act in accordance with normalized values or realize normalized goals because of the obstacles created by
social structures, it produces deviant behavior.

Criticisms

There are a number of criticisms of structural functionalism: it is ahistorical; it is unable to deal effectively with
the process of change or conflict; and it is conservative. It is viewed as ambiguous and lacking in adequate
methods. Structural functionalism inhibits certain forms of analyses, such as comparative analysis. Structural
functionalism has also been described as both illegitimately teleological and tautological. The former implies
that structural functionalists rely too heavily on the notion that social structures have purposes or goals. This
notion is posited to justify the existence of particular structures without adequate theoretical reasons or
empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the conclusion of a theory makes explicit what is implicit in the
premise of the theory. Thus, structural functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and the parts in
terms of the whole.

Neofunctionalism

Neofunctionalism was an attempt by theorists such as Jeffrey Alexander, among others, to revive the stronger
tenets of structural functionalism. Neofunctionalism attempted to synthesize portions of structural functionalism
with other theories. It highlighted the interactional patterning of the elements that constitute society, attended to
both action and order, understood integration as a possibility rather than as fact, adopted various portions of
Parsons's action systems, and traced the process of social change that resulted from differentiation within action
systems.

Conflict Theory

Associated primarily with the work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929- ), conflict theory arose primarily as a reaction
against structural functionalism and in many ways represents its antithesis. Where structural functionalism sees
a near harmony of purpose from norms and values, conflict theory sees coercion, domination, and power.
Dahrendorf saw both theories as addressing different situations, depending upon the focus of the study.
According to Dahrendorf, functionalism is useful for understanding consensus while conflict theory is
appropriate for understanding conflict and coercion.

For Dahrendorf the distribution of authority was a key to understanding social conflict. Authority is located not
within people but within various positions. Authority is created by the expectation of certain types of action
associated with particular positions, including subordination of others and subordination to others. Various
positions of authority exist within associations. The fault lines that spring up around competing loci of authority
generate conflicting groups. The conflict between these groups pervades their interaction, with the result that
authority is often challenged and tenuous.

Much as Merton looked at latent and manifest functions, Dahrendorf identified latent and manifest interests, or
unconscious and conscious interests. The connection between these two concepts was a major problematic for
conflict theory. Dahrendorf posited the existence of three types of groups: quasi- groups, interest groups,
and conflict groups. Dahrendorf felt that, under ideal circumstances, conflict could be explained without
reference to any other variables.

Conflict theory has been criticized for being ideologically radical, underdeveloped, and unable to deal with
order and stability. Both functionalism and conflict theory share the weakness of being able to explain only
portions of social life.

Conflict Sociology

Randall Collins developed a form of conflict theory that focuses far more on micro-level interactions than does
Dahrendorf. It criticized previous conflict theories and theories of stratification as "failures," and attempted to
focus on the role of individual action in the process of stratification. His theory of stratification is rooted in
Marxist, phenomenological, and ethnomethodological concerns, focusing on material arrangements and
exploitation in real-life situations. Collins extended his theory to deal with various dimensions of stratification,
such as gender and age inequality, as well as looking at stratification within formal organizations.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore with a response by Melvin Tumin

Some Principles of Stratification

Starting from the proposition that no society is "classless," or unstratified, an effort is made to explain, in
functional terms, the universal necessity that calls forth stratification in any social system.

Next, an attempt is made to explain the roughly uniform distribution of prestige as between the major types of
positions in every society. Because, however, there occur between one society and another great differences in
the degree and kind of stratification, some attention is also given to the varieties of social inequality and the
variable factors that give rise to them ....

Throughout, it will be necessary to keep in mind one thing-namely, that the discussion relates to the system of
positions, not to the individuals occupying those positions. It is one thing to ask why different positions carry
different degrees of prestige, and quite another to ask how certain individuals get into those positions. Although,
as the argument will try to show, both questions are related, it is essential to keep them separate in our thinking.

The main functional necessity explaining the universal presence of stratification is precisely the requirement
faced by any society of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure. As a functioning mechanism a
society must somehow distribute its members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these
positions. It must thus concern itself with motivation at two different levels: to instill in the proper individuals
the desire to fill certain positions, and, once in these positions, the desire to perform the duties attached to them.

One may ask what kind of rewards a society has at its disposal in distributing its personnel and securing
essential services. It has, first of all, the things that contribute to sustenance and comfort. It has, second, the
things that contribute to humor and diversion. And it has, finally, the things that contribute to self-respect and
ego expansion. The last, because of the peculiarly social character of the self, is largely a function of the opinion
of others, but it nonetheless ranks in importance with the first two. In any social system all three kinds of
rewards must be dispensed differentially according to positions.

Granting the general function that inequality subserves, one can specify the two factors that determine the
relative rank of different positions. In general those positions convey the best reward, and hence have the
highest rank, that (a) have the greatest importance for the society and (b) require the great training or talent. The
first factor concerns function and is a matter of relative significance; the second concerns means and is a matter
of scarcity.

Actually a society does not need to reward positions in proportion to their functional importance. It merely
needs to give sufficient reward to them to insure that they will be filled competently. In other words, it must see
that less essential positions do not compete successfully with more essential ones. If a position is easily filled, it
need not be heavily rewarded, even though important. On the other hand, if it is important but hard to fill, the
reward must be high enough to get it filled anyway. Functional importance is therefore a necessary but not a
sufficient cause of high rank being assigned to a position.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Practically all positions, no matter how acquired, require some form of skill or capacity for performance. There
are, ultimately, only two ways in which a person's qualifications come about: through inherent capacity or
through training. Obviously, in concrete activities both are always necessary, but from a practical standpoint the
scarcity may lie primarily in one or the other, as well as in both.

Insofar as there is a difference between one system of stratification and another, it is attributable to whatever
factors affect the two determinants of differential reward-namely, functional importance and scarcity of
personnel.

Critical Response by Melvin Tumin

The fact of social inequality in human society is marked by its ubiquity and its antiquity. Every known society,
past and present, distributes its scarce and demanded goods and services unequally. And there are attached to
the positions which command unequal amounts of such goods and services certain highly morally-toned
evaluations of their importance for the society. The ubiquity and the antiquity of such inequality has given rise
to the assumption that there must be something both inevitable and positively functional about such social
arrangements ....

Clearly, the truth or falsity of such an assumption is a strategic question for any general theory of social
organization. It is therefore most curious that the basic premises and implications of the assumption have only
been most casually explored by American sociologists.

Let us take the [Davis and Moore] propositions and examine them.

Certain positions in any society are more functionally important than others and require special skills for their
performance.

The key term here is "functionally important." The functionalist theory of social organization is by no means
clear and explicit about this term. This concept immediately involves a number of perplexing questions. Among
these are: (a) the issue of minimum vs. maximum survival; (b) whether such a proposition is a useless tautology
because any status quo at any given moment is nothing more than everything present in the status quo. In these
terms, all acts and structures must be judged positively functional in that they constitute essential portions of the
status quo; (c) what kind of calculus of functionality exists that will enable us to add and subtract long and short
range consequences, with their mixed qualities, and arrive at some summative judgment of functionality?

A generalized theory of social stratification must recognize that the prevailing system of inducements and
rewards is only one of many variants in the whole range of possible systems of motivation which, at least
theoretically, are capable of working in human society.

Only a limited number of individuals in any society have the talents that can be trained into the skills
appropriate to the more functionally important positions.

The truth of this proposition depends at least in part on the truth of proposition 1 above. It is, therefore, subject
to all the limitations indicated above. But for the moment, let us assume the validity of the first proposition and
concentrate on the question of the rarity of appropriate talent. If all that is meant is that in every society there is
a range of talent, and that some members of any society are by nature more talented that others, no sensible
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

contradiction can be offered. But a question must be raised regarding the amount of sound knowledge present in
any society concerning the presence of talent in the population. For, in every society there is some demonstrable
ignorance regarding the amount of talent present in the population.

In this context, it may be asserted that there is some noticeable tendency for elites to restrict further access to
their privileged positions, once they have sufficient power to enforce such restrictions. This is especially true in
a culture where it is possible for an elite to contrive a high demand and a proportionately higher reward for its
work by restricting the numbers of the elite available to do the work. The recruitment and training of doctors in
modern United States is at least partly a case in point.

The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which sacrifices of one kind or another
are made by those undergoing the training.

Davis and Moore introduce here a concept, "sacrifice," that comes closer than any of the rest of their vocabulary
of analysis to being a direct reflection of the rationalizations, offered by the more fortunate members of a
society, of the rightness of their occupancy of privileged positions.

In our present society, for example, what are the sacrifices that talented persons undergo in the training period?
The possibly serious losses involve the surrender of earning power and the cost of the training. The latter is
generally borne by the parents of the talented youth undergoing training, and not by the trainees themselves.
There is, second, the extremely highly valued privilege of having greater opportunity for self-development.
There is, third, all the psychic gain involved in being allowed to delay the assumption of adult responsibilities
such as earning a living and supporting a family. There is, fourth, the access to leisure and freedom of a kind not
likely to be experienced by the persons already at work.

To induce the talented persons to undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their future positions must
carry an inducement value in the form of differential, i.e., privileged and disproportionate access to the scarce
and desired rewards that the society has to offer.

Let us assume, for the purposes of the discussion, that the training period is sacrificial and the talent is rare in
every conceivable human society. There is still the basic problem as to whether the allocation of differential
rewards in scarce and desired goods and services is the only or the most efficient way of recruiting the
appropriate talent to these positions.

For there are a number of alternative motivational schemes whose efficiency and adequacy ought at least to be
considered in this context. What can be said, for instance, on behalf of the motivation which De Man called "joy
in work," Veblen termed "instinct for workmanship" and which we latterly have come to identify as "intrinsic
work satisfaction"? Or, to what extent could the motivation of "social duty" be institutionalized in such a
fashion that self-interest and social interest come closely to coincide? Or, how much prospective confidence can
be placed in the possibilities of institutionalizing "social service" as a widespread motivation for seeking one's
appropriate position and fulfilling it conscientiously?

These scarce and desirable goods consist of rights and perquisites attached to, or built into, the positions and
can be classified into those things that contribute to (a) sustenance and comfort: (b) humor and diversion; (c)
self-respect and ego expansion.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

This differential access to the basic regards of the society has as consequence the differentiation of the prestige
and esteem which various strata acquire.

With the classification of the rewards offered by Davis and Moore there need be little argument. Some question
must be raised, however, as to whether any reward system, built into a general stratification system, must
allocate equal amounts of all three types of reward in order to function effectively, or whether one type of
reward may be emphasized to the virtual neglect of others. This raises the further question regarding which type
of emphasis is likely to prove most effective as a differential inducer. Nothing in the known facts about human
motivation impels us to favor one type of reward over the other, or to insist that all three types of reward must
be built into the positions in comparable amounts if the position is to have an inducement value.

Social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods, and the amounts of
prestige and esteem which they receive, is both positively functional and inevitable in any society.

If the objections which have heretofore been raised are taken as reasonable, then it may be stated that the only
items that any society must distribute unequally are the power and property necessary for the performance of
different tasks. If such differential power and property are viewed by all as commensurate with the differential
responsibilities, and if they are culturally defined as resources and not as rewards, then no differentials in
prestige and esteem need follow.

Historically, the evidence seems to be that every time power and property are distributed unequally; no matter
what the cultural definition, prestige and esteem differentiations have tended to result as well. Historically,
however, no systematic effort has ever been made, under propitious circumstances, to develop the tradition that
each person is as socially worthy as all other persons who perform their appropriate tasks conscientiously.
While such a tradition seems utterly utopian, no known facts in psychological or social science have yet
demonstrated its impossibility or its dysfunctionality for the continuity of a society.

Are there other, negative, functions of institutionalized social inequality that can be identified, if only
tentatively? Some such dysfunctions of stratification have already been suggested in the body of this paper.
Along with others they may now be stated, in the form of provisional assertions, as follows:

1. Social stratification systems function to limit the possibility of discovery of the full range of talent
available in a society.
2. In foreshortening the range of available talent, social stratification systems function to set limits upon
the possibility of expanding the productive resources of the society, at least relative to what might be the
case under conditions of greater equality of opportunity.
3. Social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political power necessary to procure
acceptance and dominance of an ideology which rationalizes the status quo, whatever it may be, as
"logical," "natural" and "morally right." In this manner, social stratification systems function as
essentially conservative influences in the societies in which they are found.
4. Social stratification systems function to distribute favorable self-images unequally throughout a
population. To the extent that such favorable self-images are requisite to the development of inherent
creative potential, to that extent stratification systems function to limit the development of this creative
potential.
5. To the extent that inequalities in social rewards cannot be made fully acceptable to the less privileged in
a society, social stratification systems function to encourage hostility, suspicion and distrust among the
various segments of a society and thus to limit the possibilities of extensive social integration.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

6. To the extent that the sense of significant membership in a society depends on one's place on the
prestige ladder of the society, social stratification systems function to distribute unequally the sense of
significant membership in the population.
7. To the extent that loyalty to a society depends on a sense of significant membership in the society, social
stratification systems function to distribute loyalty unequally in the population.
8. To the extent that participation and apathy depend upon the sense of significant membership in the
society, social stratification systems function to distribute the motivation to participate unequally in a
population.

Each of the eight foregoing propositions contains implicit hypotheses regarding the consequences of unequal
distribution of rewards in a society in accordance with some notion of the functional importance of various
positions. These are empirical hypotheses, subject to test. They are offered here only as exemplary of the kinds
of consequences of social stratification which are not often taken into account in dealing with the problem.
UNIT 2 EDUCATION, SOCIAL STRUCTURE,
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND
SOCIAL MOBILITY

Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Objectives
2.3 Social Structure
2.3.1 Meaning and Definition of Social Structure
2.3.2 Role and Function of Education in Social Structure
2.4 Social Stratification
2.4.1 Concept
2.4.2 Theories of Social Stratification
2.4.3 Types of Social Stratification
2.4.5 Education and Social Stratification
2.5 Social Mobility
2.5.1 Concept
2.5.2 Theories of Social Mobility
2.5.3 Foms of Social Mobility
2.5.4 Factors Affecting Social Mobility
2.5.5 Education and Social Mobility
2.6 Let's Sum Up
2.7 Answers to Check Your Progress
2.8 References and Suggested Readings

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Social stratification is a relatively rigid concept in which your position in society
tends to be determined by that of your ancestors. Every individual learns about
values, ambitions, drive, and determination to succeed, and sets goals from what he/
she has learnt from family members who make every effort to maintain their status
and pass it on to their children. You may have noticed that in every society, everybody
wants to rise, of course, but only those with exceptional drive are able to, usually
through education and therefore productivity. Those lacking wealth are unable to
take advantage of opportunities. Those with good education and strong motivation
can rise but with difficulty if they start with little or no wealth. Those with good
education, strong motivation, and some wealth can rise more easily and more'quickly.
If you start from a disadvantaged position, you will find it more difficult to rise, and
the further you must rise to get anywhere. You may have noticed also that better
employment positions are often determined by social position as well as by
qualifications. In this unit, we will explain these aspects by looking into concepts
such as social structure, social stratification, and social mobility. We will describe the
sociological perspectives to provide the theoretical framework for understanding the
phenomenon of social stratification. The Unit would attempt to examine the role of
education in the social structure, social stratification, and social mobility.

2.2 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you will be able to:
define the concepts like social structure, social stratification, and social
mobility;
Education and Society: explain the role of education in the social structure and social stratification;
Concepts and Perspectives
understaild the contribution of education towards the social mobility;
understand different types and forms of social differentiation; and
learn sociological perspectives to explain the differentiation and division
of society.

2.3 SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The concept of social structure is central in the sociological literature. It is used to
designate an ordered arrangement of parts linked together to a whole. But what are
these parts that are arranged in an order? In sociology, a part may mean a social
group comprising a set of social relationships. For instance, a family is nothing but
a set of social relationships between and among the individuals connected through
either descent or blood or marriage. In this sense, a family may be treated as a part
in the social structure. Similarly, one can think of social groups such as religious
groups, political parties, business organizations, hospitals, schools, trade unions, etc.,
as being various parts of the whole i.e. the society.

2.3.1 Meaning and Definition of Social Structure

If we think of society as a multiplicity of social groups such as family, religious
groups, political parties, or occupational groups then each of these groups exhibit
organized, fairly stable or commonly accepted ways of behaviour. Each of these
groups are distinguished by the roles their members play, the goals they set out for
themselves, and the status attached to each of the roles within the group. In other
words, a part may also be understood as a social institution and a social system
comprises a number of social institutions.

Further, since a social system is composed of the interrelated acts of people, its
structure must be sought in some degree of regularity or recurrence in these acts.
Structure also has certain roles and any occupant of a role is expected to fulfill
certain pattern of obligations and behaviour. In a nutshell, the structure of a social
system includes:
groups and sub-groups of various types, interconnected by rational norms,
roles of various types, within the larger systems and within the sub-groups.
Each role system is also connected with others, through the rational norms.
regulative norms governing sub-groups and roles,
cultural values

Therefore, a social structure can be defined as a network of social institutions and

social relationships. It consists of relatively stable and orderly inter-relationships
among various parts.

2.3.2 Role and Function of Education in the Social Structure

Education is the process of preparing people to fit into the complex social structure
through the process of socialization. It helps the child to train for the future roles of
an adult life. All social institutions define the pattern of relationships and behaviour
expected of the persons who belong to them. The principal social institutions are
concerned with regulation of economic, political, familial, educational, and religious
aspects of human life. Thus the children have to learn to be fathers or mothers,
teachers or civil servants, shopkeepers or priests. They have to learn to be members
of more than one institutional group also. Therefore, the child prepares himself or
7.0.
 herself to take multiple roles through the process of socialization, in general, and Education, Social Structure,
education, in particular. Education in this context may be the informal education Social Stratification and
Social Mobility
received in the family or the peer groups or the formal education received at school.

The child get to understand the role helshe has to play in the wider society through
the formal education received in the schools. It is here a child learns to confirm to
the rules and regulations of human behaviour in groups and institutions. They have
to learn to be impartial and adopt a set of dos and don'ts. They also have to be
prepared to change the social mores when they see that they can be improved. Thus
the need of the society to bring up and educate its children leads to the institution
of family and to a whole set of educational institutions, which are interrelated with
the rest of the social structure.

Seen in this context, it can be understood that it is through the functions of people
in their institutional relations that the patterns of culture in a society are maintained.
Looked at from the point of view of the structure , a social system may seem to exist
in a static framework. From the point of view of function, the society springs into
the dynamic and changing life that we all experience. The structure of the institutions
can be described in terms of status positions, rights, rules, duties, and chains of
authority; but the culture of institutions results from the manifest activities of their
living participants, in terms of their attitudes, feelings, and sentiments, social and
cultural habits, recreations, ceremonies, and rituals. The function of education lies
both in the maintenance and renewal of the social structure, and in the transmission
and development of culture. It depends on the differences in the socio-cultural
backgrounds and status of individuals in the modem industrial societies. It also
functions as a main stratifying agent in the context of the industrial societies. The
next part examines in detail the definition of social stratification and various theoretical
explanations to explain the phenomena.

I1 2.4 SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

\
Social stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of groups of people in
, terms of criteria like economic wealth, property, political power, prestige and social
I honour. Social stratification existed as far back as human civilisation itself.
i
I
2.4.1 Concept
When human beings moved from the hunting and gathering societies to the sedentary
agricultural societies, a variety of occupations developed that were essential to the
functioning of the society. Inevitably, these occupations were ranked hierarchically,
usually based on the amount of preparation and training required or the importance
of that occupation to a particular society. This kind of unequal arrangement of groups
of people existed for centuries and it was accepted as a part of the society. It is felt
that social stratification is necessary to maintain social order. The order is maintained
by the interdependence of individuals and groups on each other. According to Pitirim
Sorokin, an eminent sociologist, an unstratified society with real equality of its
members is a myth which has never been realised in the history of mankind.

1 2.4.2 Theories of Social Stratification

Since the second half of the nineteenth century, four broad sociological theories have
been used to explain and interpret the phenomenon of social stratification. They are:
i) Natural Superiority Theory
ii) Functionalist Theory
iii) Mamian Class Conflict Theory, and
iv) Weberian Multiple Hierarchies Theory.
( 21
Education and Society: Natural Superiority Theory
Concepts and Perspectives
Natural superiority theory, also referred to as social Darwinism, was a popular and
widely accepted theory of social stratification in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. The main advocate of social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer, an English
Sociologist, who saw social organization as an environment. It is believed that certain
individuals and groups had the requisite skills or attributes to compete and to rise in
that environment. Others, not so skilled or less competitive, would fail. The social
Darwinists believed that their theory was part of the law of nature.

Some other sociologists believed that the social inequality arising out of stratification
is biologically based. Such beliefs are often heard in the case of racial stratification
where, for example, whites claim biological superiority over the blacks. Even in
terms of gender stratification, the underlying principle is that the men are biologically
superior to women. However, the question of relationship between the biologically
based inequality and socially created inequality is difficult to answer. Rousseau
refers to biologically based inequality as natural or physical, because it is established
by the nature, particularly with respect to the age, health, bodily strength, and the
qualities of the mind. In comparison, socially created inequality consists of different
privileges, which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as that of being
richer, more honored, or more powerful. However, biologically based inequalities
between men are treated as small and relatively unimportant where as socially created
inequalities provide the major basis for systems of social stratification.

Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification

Functionalist theory is a theory that is most concerned with how societies maintain
order. Generally, the functionalist theorists have tended to stress stability, consensus,
and integration in society.

Functionalists assume that the society as similar to that of a human body, comprising
several parts which form an integrated whole. Like the human body, the society's
institutions must function properly to maintain stability of the entire social system.
Further, certain functional prerequisites must be met if the society is to function
effectively and in order. Social stratification therefore becomes a tool to see how far
it meets these functional prerequisites.

Talcott Parsons, the leading proponent of functionalist model, differentiated societies

as falling on a continuum between ascribed-status-based societies and achievement-
based societies. Societies in which individuals were value based on their family
position, sex, race, or other traits of birth are viewed as the traditional end of the
continuum. On the other end is the modem society, in which a system of rewards is
used to aid in fulfilling a complex division of labour. According to Parsons, more
difficult positions that demanded considerable responsibility required a system of
rewards to motivate individuals to take them. In his view, stratification - which is,
by definition, social inequality - was both necessary and agreeable. Parsons believed
that stratification was necessary to provide rewards for people who would take on
the additional responsibility tied to difficult positions, and in his view, stratification
was desirable because it allowed the social system to function smoothly.

Parsons's ideas on qocial stratification were further developed by two American

sociologists, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore in their essay "Some Principles of
Stratification", published in American Sociological Review in 1945. They shared the
common notions with Parsons in so far as stating that the social stratification is
universal, functional, and integral to fulfilling the division of labour in society.
According to Davis and Moore, no society is classless or unstratified.
Davis and Moore argued that it was necessary and functional for the society to have Education, Social Structure,
a varied set of rewards in relation to the varied levels of sacrifices required by some Social Stratification and
Social Mobility
jobs. In other words, there are some jobs that require individuals to possess special
talents or to develop special skills. These jobs may also require that the individual
filling the position works with utmost care. Therefore, Davis and Moore find it
logical that societies developed a system of rewards whereby those jobs requiring the
greatest preparation and responsibility are rewarded more highly than are other
positions. The social order has developed a differentiated system of rewards, which
has led to social stratification.

Thus, Davis and Moore argue that one of society's most important functional
prerequisites is effective role allocation and performance. This means that firstly, all
roles must be filled; secondly, they must be filled by persons best able to perform
them; thirdly the necessary training for them to be undertaken; and finally the roles
must be performed conscientiously. If the duties associated with various positions
would be equally present to everyone and all would depend on the same talent and
ability, then it would make no difference as to who got into which position. However,
it does make a great deal of difference mainly because some positions are inherently
more agreeable than others. Davis and Moore suggest that the importance of a
position in a society can be measured in two ways, i.e. the degree to which the
position is functionally unique, there being no other position that can perform the
work satisfactorily (for e.g. a doctor's role is more important than that of a nurse)
and then by the degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in question.

In sum, both Parsons and Davis and Moore present a view of structured inequality
as being necessary to maintain social order and therefore society's survival, and as
being based on general agreement among the members of society.

Marxian Theory of Social Stratification

The Marxist perspectives generally regard modem society as being divided primarily
into two classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat - on the basis of property
ownership or non-ownership of property. Marx understood classes to be economically
determined by the difference between owners of the means of production and non-
owning direct producers. Class differences therefore are determined by the mode of
production. ,

Marx and Frederich Engels have divided history into five distinct epochs of production:
primitive communism, Asiatic, ancient Greece and Rome, feudal society, and capitalism
of these, only the ancient, the feudal and the capitalist phases received special treatment
by both Marx and Engels. Ancient society was based on slavery, feudal society was
based on serfdom, and capitalism on wage labour.

Each of these societies was divided into two major classes: the oppressors and
the oppressed or the exploiters and the exploited. In every case the exploiters
are made up of those who own the means of production but do not produce. The
exploited are those who do not own the means of production but are the direct
producers of social goods and services. Because the exploited do not own the means
of production, they are forced, in order to live, to work for those who own and
control the productive conditions of life. The exploiters live by means of the surplus
produced by the exploited. As a result, the social mode of production also reproduces
the social relations of production. Thus the relationship between the exploiters
and the exploited is constantly renewed and conserved. The Marxists therefore
in contrast to the functionalists regard stratification as a divisive rather than an
integrative structure and the focus was on social strata rather than social inequality
in general.
Education and Society: Marx also spoke of the hostilities between the two classes. Three terms-class
and Perspectives consciousness, class solidarity and class conflict - are important in understanding the
dynamics of class conflict in the Marxist approach to the study of stratification. Class
consciousness refers to the recognition by a class, such as workers, of the role its
members play in the productive process and their relation to the owning class. Class
solidarity refers to the extent to which workers act together to achieve political and
economic aims. Finally, class conflict has two aspects (1) the unconscious struggle
between the workers and the capitalists for shares in the productive output at a time
when class consciousness is not developed and (2) the conscious, deliberate and
collective struggle between the two classes when the workers become aware of their
historic role. According to Marx, social change occurs as a sequel to class struggle.
Marx said that the revolution of the proletariat will bring an end to the class conflict
i.e. the conflicting interests between the ruling class (bourgeoisie) and the subject
class (proletariat).

The Weberian Theory of Social Stratification

The work of the ~ e r m a nsociologist Max Weber represents one of the important
developments in the stratification theory. According to Weber, stratification is based
on the three types of social formation, namely class, status and power or party.
Property differences generate classes, power differences generate political parties
and prestige differences generate status groupings or strata.

Like Marx, Weber sees class in economic terms, classes as a group of individuals
who share the same position in the market economy. Weber distinguishes four class
groups in the capitalist society:
a) Propertied upper class
b) Property-less white collar workers
c) Petty bourgeoisie
d) Manual working class.
In his analysis of class, Weber differs from Marx on some important grounds. For
instance, Weber says that the factors other than ownership or non-ownership of
property are significant in the class formation and he rejects the Marxist view of the
inevitability of the proletariat revolution. Weber also disagrees with the Marxist view
that political power is derived from the economic power. He says that groups form
because their members share a similar status situation. While 'class' refers to the
unequal distribution of economic rewards, 'status' refers to the unequal distribution
of social honour. Weber also looks at "parties" or groups which are specifically
concerned with influencing policies and making decisions in the interests of their
membership.

The Principle of Meritocracy

Michael Young in his book, "The Rise of Meritocracy", says that social status would
be achieved on the basis of merit in a society where all members have an equal
opportunity to realise their talents. Members of the upper strata in a meritocracy
deserve their position, their privileges are based on merit. Socially speaking, those
who occupy the top positions are undoubtedly superior to the social inferiors who are
really the inferiors. Young argues that this may result in an upper stratum free from
self-doubt and the restraining influence of humility. Its members may rule society
with arrogance and haughty self-assurance. They may despise the lower strata whose
members may well find such behaviour offensive. This may result in conflict between
the ruling minority and the rest of the society. However, it may be assumed that
Michael Young's picture dream of a fair and just society may produce a far from
perfect society.
7.4
 2.4.3 Qpes of Social Stratification Education, Social Structure,
Social Stratification and
This section will examine three major systems of social stratification - slavery, Social Mobility
castes, and the social classes. These systems can be seen as ideal types for analytical
purposes. It may be pointed out that any social stratification system may include
elements of more than one type.

Slavery
Tile most extreme of legalized social inequality for individuals or groups is slavery.
' h e distinguishing feature of this oppressive system of stratitication is that enslaved
:individuals are owned by other people.'~hesehuman beings are treated as property,
just as if they are equivalent to household pets or appliances.
t
Slavery has been practised in different forms. In ancient Greece, the main source of
slaves consisted of captives of war and piracy. Though the slave status could be
inherited, it was not permanent. A person's status might be changed depending on the
outcome of the military conflict between kingdoms. On the other hand, in United
States anid Latin America, racial and legal barriers were established to prevent the
freeing of slaves. In other words, in whatever form it existed, it had required extensive
use of coercion in order to maintain the privileges of slave owners.

Caste
Caste is the cornerstone of social stratification in India. It is a hereditary system of
rank, usually religiously recognised, that tend to be fixed and immobile. In other
words, caste is a closed system, which denies social mobility. Connubiality and
commensali ty are the cardinal principles of inter-caste relations based on the ascription
of caste stalbus and rank by birth. According to Bailey (1957), caste is a closed
organic syste,m of stratification. However, another sociologist, Lewis (1958) observes
that caste is an integrating and cohesive factor in the village community as it
encompasses kinship ties and political and economic relationships.

According to l a i s Dumont, a French sociologist, Caste stands for inequality in both

theory arid practice, hut this inequality is not a binary opposite of equality. In his well
known study ''Homo Hierarchicus", he assigns an important place to hierarchy which
forms an important aspect of the structuralist paradigm. Ideology refers to the ideas
and nolrms derived form the Hindu civilization of which the caste system is an
important manifestation. "Hierarchy" is the dominant principle of this normative
structure which is contained in the dialectical relationship between the principles of
purity and pollution in the ritual and the behavioral domains of the system. The
ideology of the caste system in Dumont's model of stratification helped in the
comparati~veanalysis of the social structure.

Again the role of ideology in the studies of social stratification in India can also be
reflected j n Yogendra Singh's book "Social Stratification and Change in India".
Singh expllains by using the concept of 'Counter - Brahmanical ideology' of the caste
sytem in h ndia. The social consciousness of the educated classes among the deprived
cornrnuniti es, tribes and scheduled castes questions the Hindu caste system based on
the idea of purity and pollution. Thus, the clash was between two ideologies in the
'

Indian social structure - the Brahmanical model of caste and a casteless society of
groups anc 1 communities based on occupational specialization.

However, Iwith the process of modernization and social change, the issues involving
social stratification in India have now crossed the boundaries of caste and clais has
also become an important analytical tool to understand the complex issue of social
stratifica,tiorn in India. Social stratification in India is taking many new concepts into
its fold like professions, elite, categories of weaker sections of society, women, 25
--
Education and Society: children, tribes and scheduled castes. These structural entities and the new domains
Concepts and Perspectives of inequality requires novel orientations and analysis in order to understand the shift
found in the sociology of social stratification in India.

Social Class i

A class system is a social ranking primarily based on the economic position in which I

achieved characteristics can influence mobility. Education is an important contributory

factor in achieving such a class position.

In contrast to slavery and caste systems, the boundaries between classes are less
precisely defined, and there is much greater movement from one stratum or level of
society to another. Yet class systems maintain stable stratification hierarchies and
patterns of class divisions. Consequently, like other systems of stratification, class 1
systems are marked by unequal distribution of wealth and power.

Income inequality is the main characteristic of a class system. For instance, Daniel
Rossides (1997), an American Sociologist, has conceptualized the class system of the
United States using a five class model - the upper class, the upper middle class, the
lower middle class, the worlung class and the lower class. The lines separating social
classes in this model are not so sharp as the divisions in the caste system

2.4.5 Education and Social Stratification

Sociologists like Durkheim view the major function of education in any society as
the transmission of that society's norms and values. According to them, education
brovides a link between the individual and the society and it provides the individual
specific skills necessary for the future occupations, which is the most. important
factor in the modern social stratification system. Parsons (1961) believes that the
educational system is an important mechanism for the selection and allocation of the
individuals in their future roles in the society. It is also regarded as thle ground for
proving one's ability and hence selective agency for different statuses according to
their abilities. However, this argument is rejected by people like Bowles and Gintis
who argue that the social relationships in the schools replicate the hierarchical division
of labour in the work place. There is a close correspondence between the social
relationships which govern the personal relationships at the work place and the social
relationships in the educational system.

Raymond Boudon (1974) also suggests that the inequality of educational opportunity
is primarily a product of social stratification. According to him, even if there were
no sub-cultural differences between classes, the very fact that people stand at different
positions in the class system will produce inequality of educational opportunity.
Thus, the essence of social stratification is social inequality and it manifests itself
through many forms such as differential allocation of income, status and pirivileges,
opportunities for various social utilities, etc and the educational achievement is very
important in all these aspects. In the open systems of stratification such as class
system, the movement up and down the strata is possible and in the closed a~scription
based stratification systems such caste, where the boundaries between various strata
are rigid, the movement is extremely difficult.
Further, there are various correlates of the relationship between education and social
stratification in a society. Most important of them is that the education is the primary
generator of social mobility in any modern industrial society. This relatitonship is
little complex to understand. For instance, the education is the main comlponent in
achieving a status in the social class system, on the one hand, and stratification
system is the deciding factor in the differential access to education, on the other
hand. Therefore the relationship between education and social stratification is very
complex and can only be understood in relation to the concept of social mobility.
76
 Education, Social Structure,
Check Your Progress 1 Social Stratification and
Social Mobility
Notes: a) Write your answer in the space given below.
b) Compare your answer with those given at the end of unit.

1) Mention the three types of Social stratification.

................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

2.5 SOCIAL MOBILITY

Social Mobility may be understood as any transition of individual or any object or
a value that have been created or modified by human activity from one position to
another. So it can be said that the social mobility is an important concept to understand
the movement of certain groups or individuals along the ladder or hierarchy.

2.5.1 Concept
The element of time is implicit in the phenomenon of social mobility which is a
movement, either upward or downward, between higher and lower classes or, more
precisely, movement between one relatively lower position to the subsequent higher
one.

Lipset and Bendix define the term 'social mobility' as the process by which individuals
move from one position to another in the society. Thus social mobility signifies the
.movement or shifting of individuals or groups in the ranking structure of the society.

2.5.2 Theories of Social Mobility

Various thinkers and theorists in sociology have talked about the notion of social
mobility. Some of the notable among them are Marx, Durkheim, Weber, etc. Though
they have not directly focussed on the notion of social mobility, they were at times
referring to it in their analysis of social change. For instance, Durkheim (1947), in
his book 'Division of Labour' talks about transition of societies from 'mechariical
solidarity' to 'organic solidarity', which refers to a gradual transformation of a society
from simple to complex division of labour.

The functionalist perspective believes in the expansion of formal schooling for efficient
economic growth and development of a meritocratic society. But this can only be
possible when a society facilitates social mobility. It is only when the society is'
mobile that the education system becomes a vehicle for progress and development.
The specialization in education is the need of the labour force to match to the
complexity of jobs in a modem industrial world. Social mobility could only help in
developing technical requirements of industrial production and then allocate jobs to
the right men or wonien.

Partly in response to the growing dissatisfaction with the prevailing functionalist

account, many analysts have turned to the conflict or the Marxian perspective in
search for a more adequate linkage between education and mobility. Marx himself
believed that a high rate of social mobility would tend to weaken class solidarity.
Classes would become heterogeneous and this would reduce the sharing of similar
backgrounds which, intum, would weaken the class identification and loyalty since
it would be difficult for mobile individuals to feel a strong consciousness of kind
27
Education and Society: with other class members in which they found themselves. Thus intensity of class
and Perspectives conflict and consciousness would also be reduced which would be problematic as,
then, there would be no change to upside down the system of 'haves' by thle 'have
nots'. Ralf Dahrendrof, a neo- Marxist, feels that a situation has arrived in the west
where as a result of mobility in the form of education the nature of conflict has
changed. In an open society, it is replaced by competition to attain the bk:it. In his
words,

" instead of advancing their claims as members of homogeneous groups, people are

more likely to compete with each other as individuals for a place in the Sun".

He also argues that 'although mobility diminishes the coherence of groups as well
as the intensity of class conflict, it does not eliminate either'. Bowels and Gintis,
however, observe that schooling operates within work i.e. the education system
reflecting the organization of production in a capitalist society. To them, it is through
schooling that authority can be legitirnised which facilitates mobility on one hand
and inequality on the other. But, even then, as long as there is mobility, education
would help to justify in people's mind a system of inequality and to reconcile them
to their own position within it.

Max Weber (1864-1920), however, brought in the concept of social mobility for the
attainment of social status or class. For this one must have opportunities for possessing
the life chances which would include the income, perks and pensions together with
security or good working conditions. Weber's consideration of the capitalist market
therefore appears to give an explanation that there is a hierarchy of occupational
rewards found in these societies and to a great extent one can be a part of the
competition on the basis of educational qualifications. Frank Parkin, a Weberian,
however, feels that there has been a relatively high rate of upward mobility as a
'political safety-valve'. It provides opportunities for many able and ambitious members
of the working class to improve their conditions. The basic intention was to weaken
the working class by making them join this middle class in collective strategies that
might benefit the class as a whole. But these conditions were always found within
a "social closure which can only be monopolised by a minority and used as a basis
of power over the others".

Besides the classical thinkers, some other sociologists have studied the concept of
social mobility. For instance, Lipset and Zetterberg (1966) have underlined the
dimension of occupational and consumption rankings of social class and power
rankings in addition to providing a methodological note. They have also pointed the
causes and consequences of social mobility. Accepting occupation as the most common
indicator of social stratification, they viewed the occupational class as one of the
major factors which differentiate people's beliefs, values, norms, customs, and
occasipnally some of their emotional expressions. In their opinion, the recording of
one's occupational class also needs the recording of occupational setting, the social
structure in which the occupation is located. Lipset and Zetterberg have accepted that
there is a possibility of having a higher rate (and amount) of mobility in one dimension
and lower in others. Therefore, the more qualified and accurate conclusions about
mobility and stratification systems are possible only through a multi-dimensional
approach in which one has to take all possible dimensions together.

Further, Lipset and Zetterberg have suggested two sets of methodological approaches
to study the mobility. In the first set, there is comparison of (a) the present with the
past (b) one area or country with another (c) one model with another, expressing
equal opportunity. In the second set, there is the conventional operational method of
ascertaining by comparing father's and son's positions. In this method, Lipset and
Zetterberg have suggested an inquiry of father's earlier occupations along with the
sons.
78
Further, for sociologists of education like Halsey (1979), the idea of mobility is a Education, Social Structure,
movement from "somewhere to somewhere else and the somewhere in question may Social Stratification and
Social Mobility
in principle be any social or geographical position". Sociologically, it means some
kind of class or status or prestige or socio-economic position. However, mobility
enhances social-class membership based on educational qualifications. Thus those
who have moved upward had, in the process, exceeded the educational norms of their
original group and those who have moved downwvds had less educational advantage
and therefore lower qualifications.

Finally, a more recent work on the linkage between the education and social mobility
is done by Richard Jenkins (1991) who sums up all the views by saying that the field
of interconnected interests and topics had evolved into the study of social and economic
stratification and mobility. There is a patterned and differential distribution among
categories of a society's population of life chances, resources and benefits, on one
hand, and cost and penalties, on the other. According to him, the main concern of
social stratification is maintaining order. Further, to attain an elite status in the
hierarchy, educational mobility is required which would not only improve the labour
market in terms of greater opportunities for employment but also by reducing the
socio-economic inequalities to some extent in order to maintain order and equilibrium
within the society by at large.

2.5.3 Forms of Social Mobility

There are mainly three forms of social mobility, namely vertical mobility, horizontal
mobility and spatial mobility.

Vertical Mobility

By vertical social mobility, we refer to the relations involved in the transition of

individuals from one social stratum to another. According to the direction of transition,
there are two types of vertical mobility - ascending and descending or social sinking
and social climbing. The ascending type exists in two principal forms as infiltration
of individuals of lower stratum into a higher one, the insertion of such a group into
higher stratum, instead of going side by side with existing groups of the stratum. The
descending has also two principal forms. The first consist of dropping of individuals
from one higher position into lower existing one, without degradation or disintegration
of the higher groups to which they belonged. The second is manifested in its
degradation of social group as a whole. An example of vertical mobility is that in
which the scheduled castes move upward by getting modes of education, new
techniques, skills and adopting the ritual and manners of higher status caste groups,
changing their caste names, home culture and occupation and maintain the higher
position. The theory of "lagging emulation" under the framework of reference groups
is employed to understand this type of mobility both in the field of hierarchy and
occupation. However, this type of mobility takes place from lower stratum to higher
stratum.

Horizontal Mobility

Horizontal mobility refers to the transition of an individual or social object from one
social group to another situated at the same level. Horizontal shifting occurs usually
without any noticeable change. If we take occupation, shifting from one job or
factory or occupation to another of the same kind would be referred to as horizontal
mobility. An example of horizontal mobility is the citizenship shifting or shifting of
individuals from one state to another. That does not mean the changing of citizenship,
but it is called shifting of citizenship.
Education and Society: Spatial Mobility
Concepts and Perspectives
Spatial mobility refers to inter-generational mobility which is an outcome of migration
or shifting of places, for example, it may happen as a result of migration from rural
to urban community or social improvement of individuals within the family and
hence provide the chances for change in culture. In this context, some of the scholars
of change and mobility have discussed the units of mobility in the form of individual
financial group and corporate mobility. The study of mobility can be subsumed under
above pattern. So we can say that the social mobility is a part of the broader concept
of social change. In a transitional society, modem education, industrialization, growth
of cities, factories, bureaucracy and change in the occupational patterns are the main
variants for the social mobility.

2.5.4 Factors Affecting Social Mobility

There are various factors, which are responsible for the social mobility.

a) The Supply of Vacant Status

The number of statuses in a given stratum is not always or even usually constant. For
example, the expansion in the proportion of professional, official, marginal and
white-collar positions and decline in the number of unskilled labour positions require
a surge of upward mobility. These positions retain their relative social standing at
times. Demographic factors also operate to facilitate mobility, when the higher classes
do not reproduce themselves and hence create a demographic vacuum (Sorokin,
1959).

b) The Interchange of Rank

Any mobility that occurs in a given social system which is not a consequence of a
change in the supply of positions and actors must necessarily result from an
interchange. Consequently, if we think of simple model for every move up, there
must be corresponding move down. Interchange mobility will be determined in a
large part by the extent to which a given society gives the numbers of lower strata
which means complete with those who enter social structure in higher level. Thus the
lesser the emphasis a culture places on the family background as a criteria for
marriage the more will be the class mobility that can occur both up and down
through marriage. The occupational success is related to educational achievements
which are open to all and hence the greater occupational mobility (Lipset and
Zetterberg, 1966).
c) Modern Education
The education has particularly created new incentives and motivation to initiate and
adopt the ideals, practices, behavior pattern and style of life of the higher castes
which M. N. Srinivas (1965) translates and explains under the process of sanskritization
and westernization. Sanskritisation is a process through which the lower castes imitate
the traditions and cultural practices of the upper castes and sometimes even the
nomenclature to push their case for a higher status in the society. There are many
instances of the lower castes that have adopted the practices of higher castes in order
to be upwardly mobile which is otherwise not possible in the traditional Hindu
society.
The process of westernization in terms of adoption of the western ideals in life, is
also a most potential force in social mobility, specially in the urban and industrial
centers. The new value orientations, motivation, behaviour patterns, formal relations,
individualism, monetised attitude to social status, western technology is popular
among the people. This popularity for status upliftment, encourages the migration to
places where economic opportunities in terms of urban trade, industrial occupations
and jobs in different governments are available.
 d) Migration Education, Social Structure,
Social Stratification and
Migration to urban areas also contributes to the change in the social status of Social Mobility
individuals and groups. The traditional occupations slowly disappear and the modern I
industrial occupations are sought after.

All these factors help in the improvement of the social position of the people.
Normally, the higher the income of a particular occupation, the greater is the
importance of education. However, though money makes the base of living, education
decides the quality and mode of life and living. As a result, lots of changes have
come in the living arrangements of the people in the modern societies. The changes
also occur in the behaviour and manners of the people, which may be the outcome
of social mobility.

2.5.5 Education and Social Mobility

As discussed earlier, education in the present day context is the most important and
dynamic force in the life of individual, influencing his social development. It functions
I
more as an agent of social change and mobility in social structure. It leads to economic
I development by providing ways and means to improve the standard of life. The
positive attitude towards education leads to socio-economic mobility among the
individuals and groups. That means, a person who is born in an agricultural family
can, by means of education, become an administrator or any other government
employee. Secondly, education leads to the changes in the lifestyles of people. It
modifies the attitudes, habits, manners and their mode of social living. Thirdly, the
education is responsible for inter-generational mobility among the individuals and
groups. Through inter-generational mobility, the social groups are able to maintain
their status and the status of their family. Therefore, it can be said that education
plays an important contributory role in the mobility of individuals and groups regarding
their social position, occupational structure, styles of life, habits and manners.

Check Your Progress 2

Notes: a) Write your answer in the space given below.
b) Compare your answer with those given at the end of unit.

2 ) What are the three major forms of social mobility?

................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
3) Briefly identify education as a factor in social mobility?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
Education and Society:
Concepts and Perspectives 2. 6 LET'S SUM UP
In sum, social stratification is a particular form of inequality. As the well known
sociologist Pitirim Sorokin remarked, an unstratified society with real equality is a
myth which has never been realized in the history of mankind. The discussion in this
unit attempts to reject the belief that the inequalities are biological or hereditary and
argues that the stratification is basically a socially created phenomenon. Further, it
is important to note that the relationship between the social stratification and education
is complex and it must be seen with respect to the specific societies in which they
exist.

The unit has highlighted the conceptual and theoretical clarity in understanding the
notions of social structure, social stratification, and social mobility and provided an
analysis of linkages of these concepts with education. It also provided some examples
for the reader on the specific theoretical propositions linking education with the
stratification and mobility. Instances refemng to the Indian society are particularly
given in order to facilitate the understanding of students in their own social context.

2.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Slavery
Caste
Social Class
Vertical Mobility
Horizontal Mobility
Spatial Mobility
Education functions as an agent of social change and mobility in social
structure
Education leads to economic development
Education led to the changes in the lifestyles of people
The social groups are able to maintain their status and the status of
their family

2.9 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Bilton, Tony, et al. (1987). Introductory Sociology, London:,Mac Millan

Giddens, Anthony. (1990). Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press

Gupta, Dipankar. (1991). Social Stratification, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Sharma, K.L. (1994). Social Stratijication and Mobility. Jaipur, New Delhi: Rawat
Publications.
 FAMILY - A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Family Perspectives notes now finished - I’ve added on a bit of coverage on Feminism
and the Radical Psychiatrists. All in plain vanilla format, so you’ll have to cut and
paste to bold things and so on. Anyway, hope they are useful. I’m planning to add
more but it is taking longer than anticipated. Sorry if it’s late for exams this year, but
we are working at it.

Families, Households and Sociological Perspectives

The role of the family – and its relation to the wider social structure – is, as one of the
main syllabuses puts it, a well-trodden area within the AS and A level syllabus and
comes up in some form fairly regularly. Here’s a brief summary of some of the key
sociological perspectives, with I hope, a few useful insights and critical/evaluative
points thrown in. These notes start off with the two main structural or systems
theories and then have a look at some of the alternatives. These notes won’t though
say much about the individual theorists but will instead focus mainly on the key ideas.

Functionalism
Functionalism is a systems theory so it looks at each part or element of society in
terms of the contribution it makes to efficient and harmonious functioning of the
whole social structure or system. You might also remember the idea of the ‘organic
analogy’; the idea that society is like an organism and needs specialist parts to carry
out particular functions.

Well, in terms of these sorts of ideas, functionalists have always tended to see the
family as a key building block of society. Theorists like the American sociologist
Talcott Parsons, writing in the USA around the middle of the last century, argued that
the family had changed and developed as society changed. In a pre-industrial society,
large, extended family networks were functional, providing not just social
relationships and help – they were also economic structures, as many people worked
with or in their family unit – the family was then a unit of production. But an
industrial society, Parsons argued, needed a different sort of family – a smaller, more
geographically mobile unit – the nuclear family – and it became much more of a unit
of consumption, rather than production. It needed this because large scale, industrial
societies are meritocratic. They need to be he argued, in order to be fully productive;
they simply would not succeed if they permitted the existence of the sort of privileged
classes and cliques promoted by pre-industrial societies.

However, Parsons also argues that the shift to an industrial society means that some
sort of structure is needed to mould citizens into a common set of shared values. So
industrial society sees the creation and proliferation of a nuclear family unit, which
becomes vital since it is the sole means of carrying out two essential functions;
socialising children and stabilising adults.
Children need to be socialised; they always have of course, but in industrial society
the responsibility for primary socialisation falls solely on the nuclear family; it can no
longer be farmed out to extended family relatives, to other members of a tribe, or to
others in the sort of tight-knit communities which characterised some pre-industrial
societies. Adults need ‘stabilising’ as Parsons telling calls it, because more than ever,
in an industrial society, they are on the receiving end of stresses which their
predecessors could never have imagined; the relentless nature of industrial work, the
need to earn to pay bills, and living in cramped urban conditions.
It’s easy to portray Parsons as some sort of conservative, small town, Middle
American. He was certainly American, and yes, he was from the Mid-West, but his
theoretical vision is not without insight, nor humanity. It is also strikingly modern and
even though it was written in 1950s America, it still, to me at least, resonates.
So there is a clear and distinct functionalist view of the family. The family carries out
those two key functions. In doing that, it ensures that sexuality is regulated, that there
is an institutional ‘safety-valve’ which releases the pressures generated in modern
industrial society. It also perfectly fits the needs of industrial society; smaller nuclear
units are more socially and geographically mobile. The ties of the old pre-industrial
society can be cut; it no longer matters who your family were, or which class you
were born into as families are increasingly the same – nuclear – so the nuclear family
facilitates the social and the geographical mobility necessary in a prosperous
industrial society.

Marxism
If you think the functionalist view sounds modern and perceptive, a Marxist-
influenced view of the family forces you to think again. Sure, Marxism is a structural
theory, so unsurprisingly, this view of the family does have some similarities with
functionalism; but they are slight. Marxists can agree for example, that the nuclear
family provides a ‘safety-valve’ for all the tensions generated in the workplace. And
Marxists agree, in a sense, that the nuclear family fits the needs of society. But
Marxists have a very different view of how that society should be viewed. For a start,
they wouldn’t accept that modern societies are primarily industrial – they would argue
that we must understand that their key characteristic is that they are capitalist
societies. This means, Marxists would point out, that they are highly unequal
societies and means that all those Parsonian ideas about the nuclear family facilitating
geographical and social mobility are just nonsense.

Marxists would insist that if we want to understand the role of the family in capitalist
society, we have to examine how it functions in the context of capitalism; in other
words, what it does to uphold capitalist society. This is of course, a similar approach
to the functionalist view, but as indicated above, it differs because Marxists start from
the assumption that modern societies (with a very few exceptions) are capitalist.
Marxists of course, also see society in terms of the base-superstructure model. As the
base – the economy – shapes everything else, then the family is no exception and it is
seen as reflecting the needs of the capitalist economy.
Marxists therefore argue that far from promoting social mobility, the nuclear family
ensures that generation after generation remains ensnared in capitalism. The nuclear
family is an ideological conditioning device, Marxists claim, which reproduces the
ideologies which prop up capitalism – children are in effect trained to copy the values
and behaviours of their parents and so unsurprisingly often follow them into the same
sorts of work (link this to education and think of Willis’s Learning to Labour and
indeed studies of social mobility, e.g. Goldthorpe, Nuffield). The family’s job is not
to rear children, but to reproduce the labour power that maintains capitalism. Women
and children, the Marxist view suggests, are in effect, a reserve army of labour; the
fact that capitalists can draw upon their labour power, and that workers need to look
after their families, means that there is an ever plentiful supply of cheap labour and
helps keep wages a bit lower than they might otherwise be. If you think this is
fanciful, think about the labour supply of young teenagers in shops and businesses in
the UK. Or indeed, take a look at Naomi Klein’s No Logo and consider the sociology
of cheap labour in sweatshops in countries elsewhere in the world.

The family also ends up as an institution which exerts social control on parents; in
capitalist society which is highly consumerist they have little choice but to work hard
in order to buy an ever-increasing variety of unnecessary commodities for their
family. The family is thus an integral part of what Marxists call ‘commodity
fetishism’; it helps to fuel the creation of false needs, which in order to be satisfied,
require people to work hard. Mobile phones, laptops, X-boxes; all these frivolous
things need to be bought by someone and in western capitalist societies it is now
increasingly young people who are an important market. And young people come
from, of course, families.

A few points to remember in evaluating these theories:

• Remember –both of these theories tend to assume that the nuclear family is the
dominant structure and so they neglect family diversity. They also assume that the
family does in fact fulfil the functions which they say it has – maybe it does other
things too?
• Marxist approaches are often criticised for explaining the family solely in terms of
its economic functions. This is usually called economic determinism – saying that
everything happens for economic reasons. It could be that family forms reflect
cultural, e.g religious beliefs. Culture could be as or even more important than
economic factors.
• Functionalism gives a highly optimistic view of the family. It downplays negative
aspects of family life, e.g. domestic abuse, divorce. It may exaggerate the benefits of
family life and it seems to consider that everyone benefits equally from the family.
This needs to be considered critically, not just accepted.
• Both of these structural views of the family can be seen as deterministic
(functionalists say that the needs of society determine the structure of the family). So
it can be argued that both views tend to over-generalise and neglect the considerable
diversity of family structures and forms which are found in contemporary capitalist
societies.

Other Theories

There are a few other theories you should know about – feminism is a key one, but so
to is the work of a very small bunch of radical critics of the family who were active in
the 1960s – the radical psychiatrists.

The Radical Psychiatrists

This sounds a rather odd name for any theory, let alone a sociological theory, but
sociology is a broad subject (a good thing surely?). In the 1960s the decade of ‘love
and peace’ people challenged many organisations and ways of doing things.
Conventional medicine was one area which came in for a lot of criticism. Two writers
in particular, David Cooper and Ronald Laing, became well known critics of one
branch of medicine– psychiatry. Their critique also branched out to include a strong
attack on the idea of the nuclear family.
Cooper and Laing argued that the Functionalists had it completely wrong: the nuclear
family did not stabilize adult personalities at all. In fact, they claimed it often had
exactly the opposite effect. The nuclear family, they suggested, was often a cauldron
of competing wills and power games, which led to the individual development of
family members being distorted by negative labelling and scapegoating. Family
relationships could be suffocating and dysfunctional rather than functional.
The radical psychiatrists are now rather forgotten and many textbooks are editing out
material on them. But they are worth considering briefly because they are important
historically and also because they provide a useful reminder against the excessively
optimistic picture presented by functionalism.

Feminism

Of much greater importance though, is the feminist perspective, which has had a
tremendous influence on sociology in general, not just the study of the family.
One important point to note from the outset is that feminism is not a unified theory –
there are many different sorts of feminism, so to claim that feminists say ‘x, y, and z’
about the family is really a bit of a generalisation. However, having given that
qualification, there are some general observations which can be made of the family
from a broad feminist perspective. A few comments on some of the particular
branches of feminism will be made later.
In general, feminists have been highly critical of the both the highly positive view of
the family presented by Functionalists and the more critical view presented by
Marxists. The reason for this scepticism boils down to one key concept: patriarchy.
Patriarchy refers to a system of male dominance.
Feminists of all types have argued that the family is a patriarchal institution; it is
through and through, male dominated, although on this point, the different versions of
feminism kick in, as they all have slightly different explanations of why this is so and
on the degree of extent of male dominance.

The implications of thinking about the family in terms of patriarchy are far-ranging.
Feminists criticise the functionalist view which sees the family as an institution which
benefits all of its members in equal measure. Feminists argue that this view is blind to
the gendered aspect of power in the family; it is women who are seen to be
responsible for the home and the children. Women’s key role is to reproduce and be
child-carers; although in many countries women are now able to have a career, many
feminists would point out that this simply leads to a ‘double-burden’. In other words –
women can, indeed, may be expected to have careers, but they must also still take the
chief responsibility for childcare and household duties.
Feminists may point out that there is an ambiguity and a possible contradiction in
functionalist theory on gender differences. Do functionalists believe that gender roles
really are learnt through socialisation? If so, surely such patterns can be changed? As
the patterns of gender roles in the family seem widespread, does this mean that
functionalists take the view that they reflect natural, rather than social differences? A
focus on patriarchy in contrast, would involve upholding the view that gender roles
are culturally transmitted and learnt and therefore potentially open to change.

Feminists also criticise the Marxist view of the family. This view, some feminists
have argued, is also gender blind. That is, it is able to identify the operation of power
by one class upon another, but when it comes to gender relations, it is unable to
perceive any differences of power or any interests beyond those of capital and labour.
So, feminists conclude, the family does not simply reproduce labour power and the
relationships which support capitalism, it also supports and reproduces patriarchy. It
certainly does act as a ‘safety valve’ – but not just for capitalism, for patriarchy too.

Women in the family are simply reproducing labour power for capitalism and indeed,
act as a reserve army of labour, able to provide cheap labour in a capitalist system,
when it is required (and that of course, is why women are paid less than men).
Finally, the feminist critique makes a broader point about sociology in general.
Feminists have claimed that sociology has frequently presented a biased view of many
elements of social life. This mainstream view is called the ‘malestream’ viewpoint.

It’s a rather tiresome play on words which has unfortunately become part of
sociological vocabulary. But that does make a useful point. Just as we might raise the
question of whether a white, middle class researcher can really study their own society
in a neutral and scientific way, so too we can ask the same sort of questions about bias
and the study of the family. Once again we are forced to reflect on the perennial
question of whether sociology is value free.
Different Types of Feminism
Here are a few brief points on several of the most important theoretical strands within
feminism.

Marxist Feminism
As the name suggests, this is a mixing of these two theories. It leads Marxist
Feminists to argue that patriarchy is the result of, or is caused by, capitalism. This is
however, highly contentious. It seems to assume that patriarchy is something created
by capitalism – to protect property rights – and that the abolition of capitalism would
inevitably lead to a brave new era of gender equality. Critics might point out that this
certainly has not been something which has been very noticeable in communist
societies, e.g. USSR, Cuba, China, countries where women seemed to be more, not
less oppressed than in capitalist societies. In contemporary society, some might now
also refer to the role of women in Islamic societies – and you could say many/most of
these are capitalist. Are women in these societies oppressed? If so, is it by capitalism
or by religion? There are difficult questions here – what is oppression and what causes
it? And can you be oppressed and yet not realise or admit it? But these are
unfortunately, tricky theoretical issues which go way beyond the reach of AS level.
Radical Feminism

Radical feminism sees patriarchy as the result of culture. Patriarchy means that the
family helps to transmit the cultural values which portray women’s roles as being
fixed and natural. Patriarchy presents women as the weaker sex and their role in to
bear children and to raise them.
Patriarchy can exist in very different types of society and is the result of cultural
values and beliefs. Culture is a part of the social structure, but in contrast to Marxist
views, it isn’t determined by the economy or economic needs. Patriarchy can therefore
take different forms in different types of social structure, so it is perfectly possible to
have patriarchy in capitalist societies, communist societies and in theocracies: the
implication is that it patriarchy can only be changed if the culture changes.

Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism is really more of a political than a sociological approach and so

tends to be more involved with telling us how things should be rather than analysing
how they are and how social structures have come to be as they are.
However in sociology, the liberal approach has suggested that improvements in
women’s social position and within the family can be made by changes in the law.
Liberals might therefore point to the equal opportunities legislation of the 1970s
(including the equal pay act). However, although these changes have improved things
and certainly changed them, inequalities remain. Sociologists influenced by Marxist
and Radical perspectives argue that focusing on choice and opportunity tends to
assume that social structures are more flexible and open to change than is actually the
case. Those with more power (in this case, men) tend to find ways to keep hold of it.

Difference Feminism

Mainly in the wake of postmodernism and post-structuralism, some feminists have

pointed out that women’s social position varies. There are therefore, important
differences e.g. on the basis of class, ethnicity, and indeed even other factors such as
age, or religion – an important cultural difference. For some Difference Feminists,
this may mean that women’s role is one of choice – some may point for example to
the flourishing of gay and lesbian identities and families of choice in contemporary
societies.

However, sociologists still wedded to a view of structural sociology will of course

argue that the ability to make such choices does not mean that structures do not exist
and nor are these differences necessarily the most important feature of women’s social
position. Nevertheless, the notion of essentialism –which comes from this broad
approach is perhaps useful. Essentialism in this context is the idea that there is only
one type of woman and only one role or position for women in modern society – the
essential role. Essentialism would suggest that women’s role in fixed and natural and
unchangeable. Difference Feminists though argue that this is not the case; the role
which women take in the family for example, is continually open to change.
Family Structure
The Relationship Between Family Groups and Social Structures

In this section of the course we are going to look at "family life" in terms of:

a. The family as a social institution and

b. The family as a social group.

In simple terms, this means is that, on the one hand, we are going to examine the way in
which family life is organised on a "structural level" (the relationship between this
institution and other social institutions) and, on the other, we are going to examine the
organisation of various inter-personal relationships within the family group itself (adults
and children, male and female, etc.).

If you want to think about this in terms of "macro" and "micro" sociology (it might help you
to isolate some of the theoretical issues involved), the former represents a macro view of
family life while the latter focuses upon the micro view.

Before we start to examine in more detail at the various relationships I've indicated above, we
need begin this section by looking at the way in which we can define the concept of "a family".

Defining the "Family Group"

In looking at how it is possible to define a family group, we need to be reasonably clear about
four related concepts:

1. A "family" consists of people who are socially-related to one another.

An example of such a social relationship might be marriage (see below) or

cohabitation (people who live together as "husband and wife" without being legally /
formally married).

2. "Kinship" is a related concept that means connections between people (either through
marriage or lines of descent) that are "blood relationships".

An example of a kinship relationship might be that of a mother and child. Thus, the
relationship between a husband and wife is one of "family", while the relationship
between them and their children is one of both family and kinship.

3. "Marriage" is an important concept when talking about family life in our society and it is one
to which we will necessarily return in greater detail throughout this section of the course
(since, as we will see, various theorists place a great deal of importance upon the concept of
"legal marriage" as the cornerstone of the family group). For the moment, however, a basic
definition of marriage offered by Giddens ("Sociology", 1989) will suffice. Marriage
represents,

"...a socially acknowledged and approved sexual union between two adult
individuals...the marriage bond also...connects together a wider range of
kinspeople. Parents, brothers, sisters and other blood relatives become
relatives of the partner through marriage.".

4. A "household" is a group of people who have a common residence. There is not

necessarily any family or kinship relationship between them. This distinction between "family"
and "household" is an important one statistically, many because governments tend to provide
statistical information about their populations on the basis of both "families" and "households".

An example here might be a group of friends who rent separate rooms in a house
Question:

As an initial exercise (one that will also be useful in a moment), try to construct a basic
"family tree" for your family. Begin with your grandparents and include as many
uncles, aunts and cousins as you can. For each person / people label them as either
"family" or "kin" to yourself.

While the above concepts are important, it should be evident that before we can explore
the relationship between families and wider social structures we need, as I've argued, to
define the idea of "a family group" in more detail - and this may not be as easy as you
might first suppose...

Question:
How you would define "a family".

While it might seem fairly academic to you about the way a "family group" is defined (since I
suspect that you all, having lived within some form of family group for a major part of your life,
"know" how to define a family), it is actually important for two very good reasons:

1. Firstly, before we can understand anything in the social world, we need to have some form
of "agreed definition" about what it is we are trying to understand.

If there is no general agreement over definitions, it is difficult to see how we can

compare and contrast different theoretical explanations of the role of the family in
society (since different writers might be constructing theories about fundamentally
different social groups).

2. Secondly, the way in which you define something will affect the way in which you are able
to construct theoretical explanations about some aspect of the social world.

For example, if you are trying to argue that the family group exists in every known
human society, the way in which you define the concept of "family group" will have
important consequences for your theoretical explanation.

In our attempts to define the concept of a family group, an initial problem that arises is
one of whether or not it is possible (or indeed wise) to assume that there is such an
institution as "the" family in any society (note the emphasis on "the", since it means that
there can only be one type). In this respect, we have to ask ourselves a couple of
interesting questions:

a. Is there only one type of family structure in society, or is it possible to talk about a
variety of family types?

b. If there are a "variety of family types" are these types really very different from one
another (that is, are they theoretically and empirically distinct) or are they simply
variations on a basic family theme.

For example, if your definition of a family involved the idea of "two adults and their
children", is a family that consists of "one adult and their children" a different form of
family or simply a variation on the basic theme?

Whatever the niceties of the matter (and these questions will assume much greater
importance as we move through this section of the syllabus), a "classic definition" of "the
family" is one provided by the Functionalist sociologist George Peter Murdock ("Social
Structure", 1949), when he states:
"The family is a social group characterised by common residence, economic co-
operation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom
maintain a socially-approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or
adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.".
 As an initial definition, this seems as good as any and you should note three points that
derive from the above:

a. The concept of family is not necessarily linked to the concept of marriage.

In the above view, it is the social relationship between individuals that is important,
not the legal framework to their relationship.

b. Family groups can involve any number of adults who maintain socially-approved sexual
relationships

This means that families may involve a number of men related to a single woman (or
vice versa) and the "sexual relationship" does not necessarily have to be
heterosexual (between people of the opposite sex), since children may be adopted
into the family group.

c. The family group involves both adults and children.

This means, presumably, that a husband and wife, for example, who do not produce
children are not considered to be a family...

Question:
Murdock's definition, although widely-used, may be too-restrictive in the way it defines
the family. Can you think of any groups that might constitute a "family" without
conforming to this definition?

Although we may or may not agree with Murdock's definition, it is evident that various
types of basic family structure may potentially exist in any society and, in relation to our
society at least, we can broadly outline four main types of family structure based around
Murdock's definition.

As I've suggested above, we have to be careful here because it is frequently very

difficult to determine whether or not the final two basic types are really types in their
own right or simply variations on a basic theme established by the first two types...

In case you are not sure what we mean by the concept of "structure", it refers to the way
in which different social relationships between people form the basis for family
arrangements. For example, a family that consists of two adults and their children
represents a group that will have slightly different relationships to one that consists of two
adults, their parents and children. The concept of different structures should become a bit
clearer from the information provided below...

A. Extended Families:

This type of family structure generally consists of three or more generations living in the
same household (or very close proximity). The usual name for this type of family is a
"vertically extended group" because the "extensions" to the basic family group are inter-
generational (that is, "between generations" - they involve grandparents rather than
uncles or aunts).

Another form of extended family structure is that of the "horizontally extended family"
which involves relations such as aunts, uncles, cousins and so forth. The "extensions" to
the basic family group branch out intra-generationally (that is, within generations - a wife's
sister, for example).
As you might expect, there are social reasons for the existence of this basic type of
family structure (that is, its existence is related to the various ways in which the family
group responds to changes and developments in wider society). The extended family
type, therefore, usually arises in those societies where a large group of related people
living together can of use to one another in their everyday lives - each family member
provides some kind of support to the remaining members of the family. For example:
 In agricultural societies, where people are dependent upon working the land for their
existence, a large group of people can work together to do such things as care for the
sick, do domestic labour, work and so forth.

In industrial societies (especially where no support for the family is provided by the
state), the extended family provides a form of mutual aid - especially in times of family
crisis.

This form of family has existed (and probably still does exist in one form or another)
amongst all social classes in Britain at various times and there is particularly clear
evidence for its existence amongst:

1. The Working Class into the 1960's.

See, for example, Wilmott and Young's classic study "Family and Kinship in East
London".

2. The Upper Class.

Roger Gomm ("The Uses of Kinship"), for example, provides a good overview of the
way in which "extended family and kinship relationships" can be utilised by the rich.

3. Immigrant groups.

This tends to be especially true of first generation immigrants. For such groups, the
extended family still survives as a family type for reasons of mutual help and
protection, cultural preservation, family businesses and so forth.

We will develop the concept of extended family structures when we look at a related topic
(the relationship between changes in family structure and the process of industrialisation).

B. Nuclear Families:

The nuclear family basically consists of two generations of family members living in the
same household. Family contacts amongst kin (for example, brothers, sisters, cousins
and so forth) are usually weaker and less frequent than amongst members of extended
families. Contact with wider kin, while it clearly exists, is more likely to involve "impersonal
contacts" such as the telephone, rather than the more closely-personal relationships
experienced in the extended family.

Such contacts between the nuclear family and wider kin are also likely to be devoid of any
economic content - that is, wider kin do not provide a mutual support network for family
members in the form experienced by the extended family (although, it should be noted,
writers such as Peter Townsend ("Poverty In The UK.") have found evidence that, even
amongst nuclear family groups, various forms of "mutual support" amongst family and
kinship groups exist amongst the very poorest in our society.

In general, the nuclear family structure is usually found in two distinct types of society:

1. In those societies where a large family group would be a hindrance rather than a help -
for example, relatively simple societies (such as Nomadic societies)based upon hunting /
gathering, where food may be in short supply and high levels of geographic mobility are
required.

2. In advanced, industrialised, societies (such as modern Britain), where the state

provides help for the poor through a social security system / Welfare State. In such
societies, there is less need to rely upon family support, although it is clear that poverty-
stricken families, even in this type of society, do utilise an extended form of family
network on many occasions.
Question:
How would you summarise the main characteristics of extended and nuclear forms of
family life.

C. Single-Parent Families:

As the name implies, this involves a single person plus dependent children. Although it is
more likely to involve a female parent, a significant proportion of such families involve a
male parent. This type of family is sometimes referred-to as a "broken nuclear" family,
insofar as it often - but not always - arises out of the break-up of a nuclear family. In
Britain, the presence of this family structure can be attributed to three main factors:

1. An increase in the numbers of people divorcing.

2. The removal of most of the social stigma formerly involved in pregnancy outside
marriage (this type of single parent family usually involves the desertion of the male
partner following female pregnancy)

3. The death of a marriage partner.

We will explore this type of family structure in more detail when we consider patterns of
marriage, divorce, cohabitation and single-parenthood.

D. Reconstituted Families (sometimes called "Step-Families"):

One consequence of high rates of divorce and remarriage (or cohabitation) is an increase
in the number of families headed by step-mothers and step-fathers. This type of family is
usually nuclear in form and involves parents, children of either spouse from a first
marriage and (possibly) children from their present marriage. This type of family structure
is becoming increasingly common in Britain - in 1986, for example, 1 in every 14 children
(approximately 7%) lived with step-parents.

Question:

To what extent, in your opinion, can we characterise single-parent and reconstituted

families as types of family in their own right, rather than as simple variations upon a
basic nuclear form?

Thus far, we have addressed the related questions of:

a. The way we can define the concept of "a family" and

b. The possible basic variations that exist in terms of "family structures"

Next, we need to develop these basic ideas by looking at the question of whether or not
the family group is a "universal" social institution. In short, we need to consider whether or
not the family, as a recognisable social institution, has existed in all known human
societies?

Before we look at this idea in more detail, it is relevant to think about why we should, as
sociologists, need to consider such a question at all - we do not, for example, tend to
agonise unduly over questions about whether or not religion is a universal feature of
human societies or whether or not the same can be said about crime, work, poverty and
so forth. Why then, this almost unique preoccupation with such an idea in relation to the
family?
 A number of points can be usefully considered here:

1. Firstly, if the family could be shown to be a universal human social institution it would
have wide-ranging implications for the way in which any society can be socially organised
(for example, all societies would have to develop institutions that catered for this basic
functional prerequisite).

2. Secondly, if this were the case, then it would follow (perhaps) that something about the
essential nature of all forms of human social relationships (and the way in which they are
structured) compels people to adopt family-type forms of social organisation. Three points
need to be noted in this context:

a. Structuralist sociologists would be vindicated in their assertion that the structure

of human relationships determines / conditions the nature of social interaction.

b. Interactionist sociologists would have to account for the fact that, while individuals
interpret the social world in particular ways, they would appear to be doing so in a
uniform, patterned, way - which suggests that structural factors in human social
organisation are of far greater significance than Interactionists generally allow.

c. There would be a challenge from theorists (such as sociobiologists) to accepted

forms of sociological theorising, such that it could be argued that there is some form
of underlying genetic imperative to human social organisation, whereby individuals
are compelled, by their genetic make-up and inheritance, to develop family groups.
The implications of this argument, for sociology, are immense, since if this could be
shown to be the case, then it is a relatively short step from here to the argument that
all forms of human activity have an underlying, genetic, component...

3. Thirdly, aside from the debates between sociologists and non-sociologists,

"Functionalist" and "Non-Functionalist" sociologists ((which I propose to develop in a
moment), there is perhaps a further reason for the sociological preoccupation with the
idea of the "universality of the family group". This is neatly summed-up by Diane
Leonard and John Hood-Williams ("Families", 1988) when they note:

"What is at stake is the idea that the family (especially the family as we in the
West know it) is a good thing, the way we 'ought' to live. If the family is a
universal, a natural thing, its worth and desirability is self-evident. Using
'nature' and 'natural' as synonyms for real, necessary and good is a key
ideology in the West...Those who seek to demonstrate that the family is natural
and universal are almost invariably engaged in proving that it is 'good'. As such
the relevance of these arguments extends beyond the social sciences and into
wider political debates. For this reason, critics of Western family life are more
likely to line up against the Universalists.".

Question:
As an example of the way "natural" is used to mean "good and necessary" can you
think of examples of advertising that imply this interpretation?

One example I found is "Stabburet Scandinavian Crispbread. 100% Natural".

Now, briefly explain:

a. Why should this idea of "natural" be important to advertisers?

b. Why the idea of the family as a "natural form of social organisation" might be
important to some sociologists?
Is the Family Group a Universal Social Institution?

As I have suggested, like most sociological concepts, the answer to the question about
whether or not the family is a universal form of human social organisation depends to a
large extent upon how you define "the family group".

In the first place, it is clear that human biology dictates that babies have to be both
nurtured and socialised by other (adult) members of a society. The human baby, unlike
many other mammals, is relatively defenceless outside of the social organisation into
which it is born. In this respect, there is always, by definition, some kind of social bond
between infants and adults - the question we need to answer, however, is does this bond
take the same basic form in every human society?

Secondly, it is evident that if we define "the family" too widely - as consisting simply of
adults and children - then we define the question out of existence (since, as I have just
noted, it is a biological necessity that children are raised in a social context because they
are unable to survive without help).

Conversely, if we define the family too narrowly, we may ignore family forms that, while
they do not necessarily conform to a "westernised norm", do nevertheless perform much
the same kind of services for both infants and society as a whole.

We can begin to explore this question by looking at examples of what we might term
"alternatives" to Murdock's basic definition. To this end, use a reading from O'Donnell "A
New Introduction To Sociology", 1981) that covers a number of the main "alternatives to
the conventional family" (alternatively, Hamalambos covers much the same area).

The Nayar of Malabar,

Kibbutzim,
Communes in America,
Soviet Communes.

Despite the examples at which you have just looked, a couple of points seem clear:

1. Various alternatives to the "conventional" family form conceptualised by Murdock are few
and far between. In the main, therefore, it seems that the family group identified by Murdock
(with perhaps some slight variations) is pretty much a universal social institution.

2. None of the alternatives identified by O'Donnell appear to be particularly valid examples of

alternative family forms if we consider them in terms of:

a. Their long-term existence / development and

b. Their impact upon the societies in which they exist / did exist.

Taking the above into account it would seem that, notwithstanding the fact that the way in
which you define the "family group" will influence the conclusion you are able to reach
concerning the "universal existence" of the family group, it is fairly reasonable to assume
that some form of basic family group has existed in all known human societies.

However, while this may or may not be significant, it is evident that we need to pose a
couple of more fundamental questions concerning the idea of universality.

1. Firstly, if for the sake of argument we assume the family group to be a universal social
form, does this derive from the influence of biological / genetic factors, or can we explain
it in terms of the influence of social factors?

2. Secondly, we can look at the question of whether or not the nuclear family is a
universal form of family structure in modern industrialised societies.
 To deal with the first of these questions, we can look at various theorists (non-
sociological) who support the former position and contrast them with various theorists
who support the latter position.

Non-Sociological Perspectives...

We can begin this section by examining the theories of a group of related writers going
under the banner of sociobiology. For writers such as E.O.Wilson [the pseudonym of
Frank Baird] ("On Human Nature") and Tiger and Fox ("The Imperial Animal", 1972), the
assumed universality of the family is taken to indicate some form of "underlying or hidden
biological imperative" (which we can loosely define as a "command" to do something that
is beyond our ability to resist) within humans to form family groups. This imperative is
provided by the genetic make-up of human beings...

A general overview of sociobiology is provided by Giddens ("Sociology",1989) and you

should read it in order to familiarise yourself with the basic arguments put-forward by
sociobiologists (alternatively, Hamalambos has a section on this theory)

Sociobiology and Methodology

Haralambos (Themes and Perspectives", 1990) outlines a number of sociobiological

themes in relation to gender and the family and includes a number of criticisms of this
approach. Rather than go over this ground in detail, I want to use sociobiology as a
means of introducing a major question of methodology within the social sciences in
general and sociology in particular.

From your text-book:

Write a brief description of the term "methodology":

Briefly, how does "methodology" differ from sociological "methods"?

Sociobiologists have adopted a particular methodological technique in their work that

involves the following ideas:

1. Firstly, they have collected data that suggests two things:

a. That the "family group" is present in all human societies

b. That the mother-child relationship represents the basic family unit predetermined
by "nature".

2. Secondly, they argue that these "facts" have to be explained - a theory has to be
developed that will explain the empirical data and relationships they have discovered.
3. The" theory" that explains the "facts" is one they term a "human biogrammer" - that is,
a genetically-derived impulse in humans that predisposes them to behave in certain
ways. A biogram is different to the idea of instinct, insofar as human culture can modify
the biological imperative of the biogram - but it cannot completely over-ride it.

This technique is basically one of "logical inference" (which you may sometimes see
characterised as "inductive positivism" - if you are not sure about the meaning of the term
"positivism" it is important that you now work your way through the Study Pack that deals
with this idea in the Sociological Theory section of the course).

In this instance, sociobiologists look at the evidence - the "facts" - and infer the cause of
these facts. That is, they argue that such facts of human existence have to be traced
back to an underlying cause, and the cause, in this respect, is some form of genetic
predisposition - the "human biogram" of sociobiological-speak.
 This type of reasoning is not something peculiar to sociobiologists since this
methodological technique has a long and respectable history in the natural sciences
(such as physics). For example:

Long before atoms were ever seen through an electron microscope, physicists had
theorised their existence on the basis of empirical observations.

Similarly, astronomers theorised the existence of planets such as Neptune, Uranus and
Pluto (many years before they had developed telescopes powerful enough to see such
planets) on the basis of observed irregularities in the orbits of planets such as Jupiter and
Saturn.
In Sociology too, theorists such as Emile Durkheim ("Suicide: A Study in Sociology",
1897) used this methodology to good effect - why then should we doubt the validity of
such a methodology?

There are two main reasons for such doubt:

1. "Facts" (and in particular, social facts) are not self-evident things.

On the contrary, they are produced by the society in which they occur - by the
meaningful interaction of people as they go about their daily lives - as a sociologist
such as Peter Berger ("The Social Construction of Reality") might have put it.

In the natural sciences there can be a general agreement amongst scientists about
"facts". Using one example, show why you think this kind of "general agreement"
might not be possible in Sociology (for example, is it a "fact" that men are more
intelligent than women?).

Thus, one question we need to ask, in this respect, is how conclusive is the evidence in
the first place - are the observations that sociobiologists consider to be "facts" open to
doubt?

According to writers such as:

Oakley ("Conventional Families", 1982)

Bleir ("Science and Gender", 1984)
Rose, Kamin and Lewontin ("Not In Our Genes", 1984)

the "facts" upon which sociobiologists rest their case are by no-means conclusive - especially
if we look at family structures on a comparative basis (that is, on the basis of how different
societies are socially organised).

Many societies, they argue, either do not develop clearly-recognisable family

structures or, more importantly, do not assign social roles (such as child-care) in the
way that they are assigned in Western societies (where women, in the main, take-on
responsibility for the care of children).

In this respect, the idea that "the facts" are self-evident things that require explanation is
not one that can be supported methodologically. The "facts", in this instance, could be
interpreted as the self-interested attempt by sociobiologists to create phoney,
insupportable and invalid consensus about human social organisation that can then be
"explained" in terms of genetic predisposition’s...

2. Is the existence of "biograms" a reasonable assumption?

As I have suggested, while it is perfectly reasonable to theorise the existence of

something (such as atoms), there comes a point when assumptions have to give way to
proof. In this respect, sociobiologists have to demonstrate the empirical existence of
biograms, rather than simply conveniently assume their existence (since it would be just
as methodologically valid to assume that biograms do not exist...).
 Although, for example, geneticists have, over the past thirty years, demonstrated
empirically the existence of genes that determine human physical characteristics, no one
has ever empirically-isolated a gene that determines human social characteristics (a
"gene" is something that carries hereditary information about a living organism). All genes
thus far discovered that affect an individual's social characteristics - such as low IQ - also
have associated physical affects.

In addition, many geneticists have questioned the supposed relationship between

"genetic inheritance" and social behaviour as it is proposed by sociobiologists. Modern
genetics stresses the idea that, far from being a biological advantage (as sociobiologists
and others claim), the determining of social behaviour by genetic inheritance would be a
huge biological disadvantage since it would take away our ability to adapt to changes in
our environment (both physical and social). In this respect, while it is evident that our
ability to learn is genetic in origin, it our environment (culture) that shapes what and how
we learn...

In terms of the above, therefore, the "explanations" provided by sociobiologists

remain unproven assumptions...

A second strand to the "universal family" is provided by writers such a Ferdinand Mount
("The Subversive Family), a writer associated with the New Right in Britain. Mount's
basic argument can be summarised as follows:

1. The nuclear family unit is seen to be the most fundamental co-operative unit in any society,
mainly because it is a form of social organisation that pre-dates all other forms of social
organisation (it has existed from the earliest dawn of human history and has persisted to the
present day).

2. The family group is held together by necessity, love and, in its modern form, marriage. As
Mount argues,

"[It is] a way of living which is both so intense and so enduring [that it] must
somehow come naturally to us, that it is part of being human".

In the above respect, the basic argument revolves around a faulty form of reasoning
which:

a. Accounts for the continued existence of the family group in terms of some form of
hidden biological imperative which is not specified (the nearest we come to a
specification is in the concept of "nature").

b. Neglects to examine other possible (social) variables that may be of greater use in the
explanation of the apparent universality of family groups.

Sociological Perspectives...

The argument concerning the universal nature of the family as a form of social
organisation is normally seen, within sociology, to be a debate between, on the one hand,
Structural Functionalists and, on the other, Marxist and Feminist Conflict Theorists. While
this dichotomy (that is, a division into two, opposed, groups) probably oversimplifies the
matter, it is evident that Functionalists do tend to see the family, as a social group, in a
rather different light to other sociological theorists. As we shall see in a moment, the
differences involved revolve around two ideas:

1. That the family is "functionally necessary" for any society (the general Functionalist
view) - and hence necessarily "universal" (since if it is functionally necessary it must exist
in all societies).
2. That the form taken by "family-type" groups relates to the specific nature of social
organisation in any society (the general Conflict view) - and hence "the family" is not
necessarily universal.

Whatever the differences between the two arguments (which are many and varied and at
which we will necessarily look in more detail in a moment), there remains a general
agreement amongst sociologists that mankind is not "biologically" or "genetically"-
predisposed towards forming family groups (be they nuclear or extended in form).

Even those (Functionalist) sociologists - such as Murdock, for example - who view the
family as universal, attempt to explain this functional necessity sociologically. In basic
terms:

Human societies, by definition, are organised in terms of social relationships.

These social relationships reflect both biological and cultural necessities (the need to
produce and socialise children).

All human societies are faced with the same basic problems in this respect (problems
which are structural imperatives if human society is to exist).

Therefore, it is not surprising that people necessarily arrive at similar solutions to

those problems.

in our society. Medical services are still
free, but the elderly are often
considered a low priority in terms of
health provision. You may have to
wait months or years for non-essential
surgery.
• Services such as home helps, district
nurse/health visitor, day centre care,
social workers and meals-on-wheels are
also provided for those aged 65 and
over.
• If you reach a stage where you are
unable to adequately care for yourself,
you will be faced with the choice of
entering a private nursing home
(which will be expensive and largely
unsubsidised – which may affect any
inheritance for your children) or, more
likely, you will be forced to rely on
your children for care and
accommodation (‘care in the
community’). If you have no children
or no means of support you will receive
some form of state care.
In this section we have looked at a range of
social policies affecting family life and
experiences in our society which, as I
indicated earlier, involves a sense of
historical development and continuity.
Continuing this general theme, therefore,
we can turn next to an examination of
changes to family and household structures
and their relationship to processes of
industrialisation and urbanisation.
Families and households
Family and
household
changes
Introduction
As I have just noted, the focus of this
section is an examination of changes in
family and household structure and their
relationship to industrialisation and
urbanisation. To understand the nature and
extent of such changes we need to do two
main things: firstly, we have to outline what
we mean by:
• family and household structure
• industrialisation
• urbanisation.
Secondly, we need to examine how family
and household structures have changed
historically in our society and how such
changes can be related to processes of
industrialisation and urbanisation.
WARM UP: FAMILY GENOGRAMS
A genogram originally developed by
McGoldrick and Gerson (Genograms in
Family Assessment, 1985) is a way of
describing family relationships and their
structure. It is similar to a family tree, but a
little more sophisticated in terms of the
information it contains.
Draw a genogram for your family (using the
examples of McGoldrick and Gerson’s
notation over leaf ).
Start by identifying your immediate family
and work outwards from there . . .
Males are indicated by squares, females by
71
 AS Sociology for AQA

circles. Marriage/cohabitation is shown by

an unbroken line. Preparing the
The person drawing the genogram is ground
indicated by a double box. Put the birth date
of each family member at the top left. Family/household structure is based on the
idea we can identify differences in the way
Links between living family members can be people relate to each other; in other words
indicated as a broken line. Indicate the (going back to the work we did on the
relationship (uncle, for example) beneath concept of structure in Chapter 1) family
the line. and household structures are differentiated (or
Marriage dates are recorded above the link different) from each other on the basis of
line. the different lifestyles, values and norms
A separation is recorded by a slash (with surrounding people’s relationships. The
date) along the line. following examples of different family and
Divorce is recorded as above, except two household structures make this a little more
lines are used. understandable:
Remarriage (or ex-marriage) is indicated to • Nuclear families consist of two
one side with a smaller shape. generations of family members (parents
and children) living in the same
household. Contacts with wider kin
(aunts and cousins, for example) are
45 44 usually infrequent and more likely to
involve ‘impersonal contacts’ such as
81
the telephone or email. For this reason,
79 this family structure is sometimes called
an isolated nuclear (reflecting its
isolation from wider kin and it’s
‘economic isolation’ from the rest of
society) or conjugal family – a self-
contained unit where family members
m. 90 are expected to support each other
socially, economically and
psychologically.
m. 90, s. 94
• Extended families, as the name suggests,
involve additional family members. This
m. 90, s. 94 d. 96 structure comes in three basic flavours:
• Vertically extended consists of three
m. 1990, d. 96 m. 99 or more generations (grandparents,
parents and children) living in the
same household (or very close to each
other). Matrifocal families are a

72

variation on this type of family
structure in that they involve (or are
focused on) women (a female
grandparent, female parent and
children). Conversely, patrifocal
families (quite rare in our society) are
focused on men.
• Horizontally extended involves
relations such as aunts, uncles, cousins,
etc. (relations of the same generation as
the parents). These ‘extensions’ to the
basic family group branch out within
generations – a wife’s sister and her
partner, for example, living with the
family group. Polygamous families
(where one man lives with many women
or vice versa) sometimes take this form –
the parents may, for example, be drawn
from the same generation.
• Modified-extended refers, according to
Michael Gordon (The Nuclear Family in
Crisis: The Search for an Alternative,
1972) to the idea that wider family
members keep in regular touch with each
other. This may be both physically (in
the sense of visiting or exchanging help
and services) and emotionally (contacts
by telephone, email and the like).
Related to this idea is a distinction drawn
by Peter Wilmott (‘Urban Kinship Past
and Present’, 1988) when he talks about
local extended families, involving ‘two
or three nuclear families in separate
households’ living close together and
providing mutual help and assistance;
dispersed extended families, involving
less frequent personal contacts; and
attenuated extended families involving,
for example, ‘young couples before they
have children’, gradually separating from
their original families.
Families and households
• Single-parent families involve a single
adult plus their dependent children.
Although this is more likely to be a
female parent, a significant proportion
involve a male parent. This type of family
is sometimes called a broken nuclear family,
because it often – but not always – arises
from the break-up of a two-parent family.
• Reconstituted (or ‘step’) families (usually
nuclear in form) result from the break-up
of one family (through things like death or
divorce) and its reconstitution as a unique
family by remarriage or cohabitation. It
may, therefore, involve children from a
previous family as well as the new family.
Remarriage
(Either partner)
Parents Step Parents
Step brother/
Child Step sister
A reconstituted (step) family
• Homosexual families: Usually nuclear in
form, this type of family involves adults of
the same sex plus children (own or
adopted). Homosexual couples cannot
currently legally marry in the UK (a
Labour Government Bill to recognise
‘Civil Partnerships’ – giving each partner
legal rights similar to married
heterosexual couples – was rejected by
the House of Lords in June 2004). Gay
couples can, however, legally cohabit.
73
 AS Sociology for AQA
Tony Barlow and Barrie Drewitt, who have
lived together since 1988, paid an
American surrogate mother to carry twins
artificially conceived using one of the
partner’s sperm.
Household structures in our society,
involve the following:
• Single households consist (as you might
have guessed) of an adult living alone.
Traditionally, death and relationship
breakdown have been the main reasons
for this type of household, although there
is increasing evidence people are
choosing to live this way (in 2003, for
example, 13% of all households consisted
of a single person).
• Couple households consist of two people
living without children. In 2003, 25% of
all households were of this type, making
it the second most common household
type after couples with dependent
children (38% of all households).
• Shared households are not particularly
common and involve, for whatever
74
reason, a group of people living together.
This may be a temporary arrangement
(such as students sharing a flat) or a
permanent arrangement whereby
families/individuals live together as a
commune.
We can complete the first part of this
section by briefly outlining what we mean
by the concepts of:
• Industrialisation – a process whereby
machines are extensively applied to the
production of goods in society
(mechanisation). One result of this process
is the development of factories and the
ability to mass produce consumer goods
(clothes, cars, mobile phones). Related to
this process is the concept of:
• Urbanisation, which involves the idea of
population movement away from rural
(village) living to larger communities
based in towns and cities. This is
sometimes called social migration from
the countryside (rural areas) to towns –
urban areas which developed as
industrialisation and factory production
developed.
Digging deeper
Having familiarised ourselves with some
basic concepts about family and household
structures, industrialisation and urbanisation,
we need to explore the relationship between
these ideas. To do this, we need to frame
debates about possible changes in this
relationship within a sociological context,
one that involves thinking about the
relationship between social change and social
behaviour in a historical context – and to
explore possible historical changes within
both society and family structures, we need

to do two things: firstly, establish a
framework for our analysis of social change
and secondly examine historical changes in
society and how they link to economic
changes over time. Since we want to look at
the effects of industrialisation, we can
organise the framework in terms of the
characteristics of three ‘historical types’ of
society, namely:
• pre-industrial (or pre-modern)
• industrial (or modern) and
• post-industrial (or postmodern).
The table below identifies a range of
significant social and economic features of
each of these basic types. When referring to
this table, keep the following in mind:
• Types of society: These are not ‘hard-
and-fast’ categories – pre-modern
society didn’t end abruptly, to be
replaced by modern society. The table
simply helps you identify some possible
differences between different types of
society.
• Post-modernity: There are arguments
within sociology about whether we now
Pre-modern
Time Pre-18th century
Features of Pre-industrial
economic Agriculture
production Tools
Scale Local
Political Feudal
system
Table 2.2 Selected characteristics of types of society in Britain
Families and households
live in a postmodern/post-industrial
society. I have included it as a type here
mainly because it’s easy to make the
mistake of thinking ‘industrialisation’ is
something that happened a long time
ago. Whatever we want to call present
day society (postmodern or late modern,
for example) the important thing is to
relate family and household change to
both an understanding of the past and the
present.
• Mass production refers to the idea that
machines were used to produce goods to a
standard design, cheaply enough to make
them available to large numbers of
people.
• Service production refers to the idea that
providing services to people (either
physically – as in McDonald’s – or
through things like banking, insurance
and knowledge-based systems) is the
dominant form of economic activity in
postmodern society.
• Feudal refers to a political system
involving a major social distinction
between the Nobility (large
Modern Post-modern
18th-late 20th Late-20th century to
century present
Industrial Post-industrial
Mass production Service production
Mechanisation Automation
National Global
Capitalist Late capitalist
75
 AS Sociology for AQA

landowners) and the Peasantry (largely

landless). Family and
household
Feudal system
changes
King
Preparing the
nd
La

Taxes ground
ction

Nobles
Military In terms of the question just posed, there are
Prote

Church
Knight Knight
Peasants Peasants
Serfs/Slaves
• Capitalist refers to a political system
based on a class distinction between
owners (employers) and workers
(employees).
In the table I have suggested significant
historical changes in our society based on
the idea of economic changes to the way
goods are made and services provided. There
is, in this respect, little doubt Britain today
is a very different place to Britain 500 years
ago and it would not be difficult to establish
changes in, for example, personal
relationships (family or otherwise) between
these two periods. However, the crucial
question we need to explore next is the
extent to which the social changes created
by industrialisation and urbanisation
produced changes in family and household
structures.
76
two basic positions we need to examine.
The first argument suggests industrialisation
and urbanisation were important factors in
the promotion of family and household
change. These processes, as they developed
over a couple of hundred years between the
late seventeenth and late nineteenth
centuries, radically changed the nature of
work and economic production as Britain
gradually moved from an agrarian
(agricultural) to an industrial (factory-based)
society. This change in the nature and
organisation of work – from the land-based,
rural, agricultural, family-centred,
organisation of pre-industrial society to the
capital-intensive, urban, industrial, factory-
centred, organisation of industrial society –
produced, from this viewpoint, radical
family and household changes. The basic
argument here is that family structures
changed from the predominantly extended-
family organisation of pre-industrial society
to the predominantly nuclear family
organisation of industrial society. The main
reason for this was that industrialisation saw
the development of factories and, in turn,
the rapid growth of large urban centres
(towns and cities) to support and supply
labour for factory-based production.
To accommodate such changes, the old
extended families of pre-industrial society

(ideally suited to the demands of a family-
based, subsistence form of farming) were
broken down into nuclear families that fitted
the economic requirements of:
• geographic mobility – the need for
families to move to towns and
factories
• labour flexibility – the need to move to
where jobs were located.
Industrialisation, therefore, was seen as the
motor for family change – people were
forced to change the way they lived to
accommodate new forms of economic
production.
If we trace this idea into the late
twentieth/early twenty-first century, a
similar pattern emerges, but this time the
emphasis is on family fragmentation and
diversity. The nuclear family structures
created by industrialisation and urbanisation
are disrupted by the needs of global
economic systems and work processes,
processes of de-industrialisation (a decline in
the economic importance of manufacturing)
and of de-urbanisation (a move away from
towns and cities to the countryside).
The second, alternative, argument also
involves thinking, initially, about
industrialisation and urbanisation. The
argument here is that these occurred in
Britain (the first country to industrialise)
because pre-industrial family structures
were mainly nuclear and thus ideally
positioned to take advantage of new
economic opportunities requiring family
mobility and flexibility; in other words,
pre-industrial family structures – with few
unbreakable physical or emotional ties
with extended kin – are seen as the motor
for subsequent industrial development.
Families and households
In addition, the relatively large number of
extended households in pre-industrial times
(which included, for example, servants who
had few, if any, emotional or economic ties
with their employers) also represented
flexible structures that could adapt relatively
easily to the changed economic world. This
idea of flexibility translates relatively easily
to post-modern society, which, so this
argument goes, requires highly flexible
family and household structures if new
economic opportunities are to be grasped
and exploited. Our society, it is suggested,
has already evolved fragmentary family and
household structures (through
industrialisation and changes to legal
relationships – the easy availability of
divorce, the growth of single-parent families
and single-person households etc.) that are
well-suited to taking on board globalised
forms of work (living and working in
different countries, working at home using
computer technology and so forth).
Having identified two opposing sides to
the debate, therefore, we need to examine
the historical evidence to help us decide
which, if any, of these two arguments best
describes the relationship between changes
in family and household structures,
industrialisation and urbanisation.
Digging deeper
Evidence for the first argument (generally
known as the ‘Fit Thesis’ because it proposed
a close fit between changes in family
structures, industrialisation and
urbanisation) has been put forward by
Functionalist writers such as Parsons (‘The
Social Structure of the Family’, 1959) and
Goode (World Revolution and Family Patterns,
1963) as well as, in a slightly different way,
77
 AS Sociology for AQA
the social action theorist Max Weber (The
Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism,
1904).
In basic terms, extended family structures
were seen as the norm for pre-industrial
society because they were:
• Multi-functional: A wide family network
performed a range of different functions
related to the economic and social well-
being of family members.
• Kinship-based: Members of the extended
family group shared not only a
household, but a common economic
position that involved working together
as a social group (mainly as subsistence
farmers but also in various craft trades –
brewing and baking, for example – within
the home).
• Economically productive: People lived
and worked within a family group that
provided the only viable means for their
physical survival.
This situation arose, according to this
argument, for three main reasons.
• Agriculture: Labour-intensive farm work
78
required as many people as possible to
work the land.
• Geographic mobility: The ability to move
away from the family group was severely
limited by poor communications (no
railways or cars, basic road systems and so
forth). This meant, in effect, family
members – even if they had wanted to –
were physically unable to move far from
the family home.
• Society: In pre-industrial society there
was no well-developed welfare system
(few hospitals existed, for example)
which meant family members relied on
their own resources when it came to
looking after and caring for the sick, the
elderly and so forth.
The development of industrial society
produced, according to this view, a structural
family change – nuclear families became
dominant because of the demands of factory
forms of production and the opportunities
this system created.
• Geographic mobility: People had to be
mobile to find and keep work in the new
industrial processes. There was a huge – if
gradual – movement away from rural
areas to the developing towns and, in
such a situation, the extended family of
pre-industrial society gradually broke
down.
• Social mobility: New opportunities arose
for social mobility and economic
advancement as different types of work
developed – people were no longer simply
subsistence farmers. However, to seize
these new opportunities, families had to
be ready and willing to move to those
areas where the chances of economic
advancement were greatest.

• Nepotism (favouring your relations over
others) was no longer a significant social
asset (as it was in extended families),
since the new industries demanded the
demonstration of skills and knowledge
rather than family connections.
If we extend this argument to post-industrial
society we can identify significant changes to
both family and household structures.
• Family structures: One feature of post-
industrial society is the increasing diversity
and fragmentation of family life –
notwithstanding Chester’s observation
(The Rise of the Neo-conventional Family,
1985) that the majority of people in
Britain still live at least part of their life
within some form of nuclear family
structure. Just as, in the industrial period,
family structures changed to
accommodate new forms of economic
organisation, so too, in the post-industrial
period, further changes have occurred.
New forms of working (especially through
computer technology and networking)
open up opportunities for homeworking
which, in turn, means single-parent
families are, potentially, no longer
excluded from the workforce. The
relatively small size of nuclear families
and improved communications (such as
the ability to stay in close contact with
extended family members relatively easy)
makes this family group increasingly
mobile – both in terms of national and
international movement.
• Households: One of the features of post-
industrial society is the increase in the
number of single-person households,
indicative, according to this argument, of
the way economic changes have impacted
Families and households
on people’s behaviour. The single-person
household is, of course, potentially the
most geographically mobile of all
family/household structures and reflects
the changing (increasingly global) nature
of work.
Having outlined the evidence for the first
argument, we can turn to an alternative
interpretation of the relationship between
family and household structures and
industrialisation.
Pre-industrial society
Carlin (‘Family, Society and Popular
Culture in Western Europe c. 1500–1700’,
2002) argues, ‘most households in early
modern Western Europe were nuclear family
households, i.e. all the blood relations they
contained were one couple and their
children’. Although extended families
existed, the main reasons for this type of
family not being more common seem to be:
• Life expectancy: Average life expectancy
was low (around 35–40 years) and,
consequently, parents didn’t always live
long enough to become grandparents.
Although this may have been a reason for
many families remaining nuclear, we
should note calculations of average life
expectancies in pre-modern societies may
be biased by high rates of infant and child
mortality (large numbers of children
dying drags the average down).
• Choice: Carlin (2002) notes that some
parts of Western Europe, with similar
birth and death rates to Britain, contained
more vertically extended (sometimes
called stem) families. This suggests, at least
in part, people in Britain were choosing
not to live in extended family structures.
79
 AS Sociology for AQA
• Retirement: Demographic evidence
(information about how people live) from
areas where people did survive into old
age suggests they were expected to retire
into households separated from their
children.
• Extended households: Peter Laslett (The
World We Have Lost, 1965 and Household
and Family in Past Time, 1972) notes that
upper-class households frequently
included both wider kin and servants
(mainly because there was sufficient room
for them to live within the household).
Lower-class households, although
frequently nuclear because of high
mortality rates among the elderly,
probably contained ‘lodgers’ (who are
likely to have been kin) staying
temporarily within the family group.
Laslett, however, estimates only 10% of
pre-industrial households contained more
than two generations of kin.
• Modified extended structures: Michael
Gordon (1972) suggests arguments that
the extended family was dominant in pre-
industrial society confuse temporary
extensions to a family (such as a relative
living within a nuclear family for a short
period) with the idea of a permanent
extended family structure which, he argues,
‘is seldom actually encountered in any
society, pre-industrial or industrial’.
According to this argument, therefore, the
mainly nuclear pre-industrial family was
actually necessary for industrialisation.
Industrialisation
Harris (‘The Family and Industrial Society’,
1983) argues nuclear family structures
dominated pre-industrial society because
industrialisation required:
80
• An inheritance system that
concentrated wealth, making capital
(investment money) available to
relatively small numbers of people. A
close-knit, nuclear structure allied to a
system of primogeniture (inheritance, by
the first-born son, of a family’s total
wealth) made this possible. In addition,
it forced those who didn’t inherit to
move away from the family home.
Wegge’s (really quite fascinating)
research into peasant population
movements in Germany (‘To Part or Not
to Part’, 1999) supports this idea when
she notes, ‘it is the primogeniture
institution which better promotes
emigration’.
• Population growth: According to the
Office for National Statistics, the
population of England and Wales trebled
between 1700 (6 million) and 1851 (18
million), indicating the existence of a
large, landless, potential workforce. This
is significant because it suggests
geographic mobility wasn’t a
requirement for the development of
industrialisation since what we see here
is a population explosion in urban areas,
rather than migration from the
countryside to towns.
• Migration: If ideas about population
growth are valid, it suggests urbanisation
didn’t result from the break-up and
migration of extended rural families;
rather, it occurred as the result of the
population growing rapidly during the
early industrial period.
Rosemary O’Day (Women in Early Modern
Britain, 2000), for example, notes that a
large rural class of agricultural labourers
existed in the seventeenth century. They

owned no land and lived by selling their
labour outside the family group.
In terms of this argument, therefore, Michael
Anderson (Approaches to the History of the
Western Family, 1995) points out there were
‘many continuities’ of family structure during
the change from agricultural to industrial
forms of production, during which no single
family or household structure was wholly
dominant. Thus, although we have focused
on extended/nuclear family and household
structures, this doesn’t mean other types
(with the possible exception of gay families)
were not in evidence. Both reconstituted and
single-parent family structures, for example,
existed in pre-industrial societies, mainly
because of high adult death rates, especially
among the lower classes.
However, the historical evidence does
suggest that, at least during some part of the
industrialisation/urbanisation process,
changes to family and household structures
did occur, especially in relation to social
class and the increasing diversity of family
and household structures. Anderson (1995),
for example, notes the working classes,
during the process of industrialisation,
developed a broadly extended family
structure which resulted from:
• Urbanisation: As towns rapidly
developed around factories, pressure on
living space (and the relative
underdevelopment of communications)
resulted in extended family living
arrangements.
• Mutual aid: The lack of state welfare
provision meant working class families
relied on a strong kinship network for
their survival. During periods of sickness
and unemployment, for example, family
members could provide for each other.
Families and households
• Employment: Where the vast majority
could barely read or write, an ‘unofficial’
kinship network played a vital part in
securing employment for family members
through the process of ‘speaking out’
(suggesting to an employer) for relatives
when employers needed to recruit more
workers.
• Child care: Where both parents worked,
for example, relatives played a vital part
in child care. In addition, high death
rates meant the children of dead relatives
could be brought into the family
structure. In an age of what we would
now call child labour, young relatives
could be used to supplement family
income.
Middle-class family structures tended to be
nuclear, mainly because of:
• Education: The increasing importance of
education (for male children) and its cost
meant middle class families were
relatively smaller than their working class
counterparts.
• Geographic mobility among the class
from which the managers of the new
industrial enterprises were recruited
weakened extended family ties.
Upper-class family structures, according to
Roger Gomm (The Uses of Kinship, 1989)
have historically been a mixture of nuclear
and extended types, although extended
family networks, even up to the present day,
are used to maintain property relations and
for mutual economic aid amongst kin.
In addition, wealth meant extended kin
(such as elderly grandparents) could be
relatively easily accommodated within the
family home and the evidence suggests it
was – and still is to some degree – relatively
81
 AS Sociology for AQA
common for the vertically-extended family
to exist among the upper classes.
Post-industrial society
Family and households structures in the late
twentieth/early twenty-first centuries are,
arguably, more complex, fragmented and
diverse than at any time in our history, ideas
we can briefly examine in the following
terms.
• Diversity: As we have seen earlier, our
society is characterised by a wide range of
different family and household structures
(nuclear, reconstituted, single-parent, gay
and extended) apparently co-existing. It
is, however, difficult to disentangle this
diverse range of family structures, for two
reasons.
• Nuclear family structures seem to be
the dominant family form, although
they clearly involve a range of
different family relationships; a single-
parent family contains a different set of
relationships to those in a
reconstituted family, for example. The
question here, therefore, is the extent
to which either or both these family
structures can be characterised as
nuclear families.
• Definitions of nuclear and extended
family structures determine, to some
degree, your view of their relationship.
For example, Willmott’s (1988)
concept of a dispersed extended family
appears to plausibly characterise many
types of family relationship in our
society – what we have here, therefore,
is a basic nuclear family structure
surrounded and supported by extended
family networks (and whether or not
you count this structure as nuclear or
82
extended depends, as I have suggested,
on how you define such things).
• Social changes: Relatively easy access to
divorce (resulting from legal changes over
the past 50 years) has led to greater
numbers of reconstituted/single-parent
families and single-person households.
• Social attitudes: Whatever the origins of
such changes, it is clear lifestyle factors,
in terms of greater social acceptance of
single-parent and homosexual family
structures, has played some part in
creating family structural diversity. The
Office for National Statistics (2000), for
example, recorded 26% of all families
with dependent children as containing a
single adult parent.
• Life expectancy: Increased life
expectancy, a more active lifestyle and
changes to the welfare system (which in
recent years has encouraged the de-
institutionalisation of the elderly) has
created changes within family structures,
giving rise to the concept of a new
grandparenting (grandparents play a
greater role in the care of grandchildren,
for example, than in the recent past).
These trends have led to what Julia
Brannen (‘The age of beanpole families’,
2003) calls the beanpole family structure –
a form of inter-generational (different
generations of family members),
vertically-extended family structure with
very weak intra-generational (people of
the same generation – brothers and
sisters, for example) links.
Similarly, Bengston (‘Beyond the nuclear
family’, 2001) speculates about the extent
to which the phenomenon of increasing
bonds between different generations of
family members (as represented, for

example, by the new grandparenting)
represents ‘a valuable new resource for
families in the 21st century’.
• Ambivalence: Luscher, (‘Ambivalence:
A key concept for the study of
intergenerational relations’, 2000) on the
other hand, suggests that people are
becoming increasingly uncertain
(ambivalent) about family structures and
relationships in the light of family
changes. Increases in divorce, for
example, have led to the widespread
creation of single-parent and
reconstituted families. These may have
resulted in a weakening of family
relationships as family members seek to
create new social spaces for themselves
and their (new) families away from the
relationships that previously existed in
their lives. One result of these changes,
perhaps, is families seeking ‘to put
geographical distance between different
family generations’.
Strengths
1.
2.
3.
• Households: Finally, one of the most
striking features of our society is the
growth of lone person households. In
Families and households
2003, for example, this household type
was the single most common family or
household structure in our society –
according to the Office for National
Statistics (Social Trends 34, 2004), 29%
of families and households in the UK now
involve a single person, marginally
outstripping ‘couples with no children’
(28% of all family and household
structures).
In turn, on current projections
(‘Complicated Lives II – the Price of
Complexity’, Abbey, 2002), the ‘Couple
with no children’ household will soon be
more common in our society than the
‘Couple with children’ family – at present,
according to the Office for National
Statistics (Social Trends 34, 2004), each
of these types constitutes 28% of all
family and household structures.
Growing it yourself
Having looked at the two arguments about
the relationship between family and
household structures, industrialisation and
urbanisation:
1. Create a list (based on the following
table) of what you think are the three
most important strengths and
weaknesses of each argument.
Argument 1 Argument 2
Weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses
2. Based on the strengths and weaknesses
you’ve identified, write a brief (500–600
words) comparison of the two arguments.
83
UNIT 1 MARRIAGE AND FAMILY:
CHOOSING LIFE PARTNER
Contents
1.0 Objectives

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Meaning of Marriage
1.3 The Functions and Purposes of Marriage
1.4 The Historical Development of Marriage
1.5 The Family
1.6 Types of Family Pattern
1.7 Choosing a Partner
1.8 Let Us Sum Up
1.9 Key Words
1.10 Suggested Readings
1.1 1 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the units to develop a deeper understanding of marriage and
family. After studying the unit, you will be able to:

define marriage and family;

compare different types of relationship in family lifc,;

explain the functions and purpose of marriage;

identify interest in acquiring more knowledge about marriage and

family; and

apply this knowledge in your own life situations.

1 . INTRODUCTION
The family forms an essential part of human evolution, without which human
existence would have been impossible. The human infant may be perhaps the
most helpless creature at the time of birth. It needs a long period of protection
by and association with parents. This itself points to the need and main purpose
of a family,
Social Institution of The basic course has already explained the need and importance of Family
Marriage
Life Education. This unit explains the concept of marriage and the purpose
and functions of marriage and family. A deeper understanding of the
commitment in\.olved in family life would help one to think more seriously
about marriage and family.
I
This Unit has tried to highlight the points to be remembered in choosing a life
partner. Who is to select the partner and how to select the partner are some
usual questions that any young people may ask. The answers to these questions
are discussed on the basis of social expectations and the social and psychological
factors involved in the choice.

1.2 MEANING OF MARRIAGE

Marriage is a common term that we come across in our daily life. Have you
ever thought of it seriously? What is the meaning of marriage? Is it a mere
relationship between a man and woman to live together and have children? Is
it a man-made institution? When did such an institution come into existence?
It will be really interesting to ponder over the answers to the above questions
- much more so about the meaning, scope, purpose and history of marriage.

The term 'marriage' has different meanings and connotations for different
people. To some, marriage is a relationship between men and women for the
propagation of the human species. Some people take it as a license for sex. Yet
another group considers marriage as a means for companionship. Marriage
comprises all these views and much more. It is a very complex institution
which can not be defined in a sentence or two. Many sociologists and
philosophers have given differing views about the meaning and scope of
marriage.

Marriage is not an integral part of human nature, but it is a man-made custom

or institution which was present even in prehistoric times. It is not a natural
relationship but a conscious commitment between a man and a woman. With
the advancement of civilization marriage became a social function with religious
and legal sanction.

As stated earlier, marriage has different meanings and connotations. Let us

look at some of them.
Marriage as a Relationship
Marriage is one of the deepest and most fulfilling of human relationships. It
has existed in varying forms throughout the history of man, responding to the
fundamental needs and social aspirations of each generation.

Marriage as an Institution
Marriage is a union of man and woman their bodies, minds and souls, emotions
and desires. The essence of this union is love. Marriage is considered to be a
primary relationship, because it is a personal relationship between the partners.
Lin Yutan gives a beautiful explanation of marriage. He says "woman is water
and man is clay and the clay holds the water and gives it substance in which
water moves and lives and has its full being".
The Biological Aspect of Marriage Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
The animal mates, but man marries. Looking from the biological point of
view, we can say that mating is a biological matter, while marriage is a social
affair. The sex instinct is one of the basic instincts for reproduction. In the case
of man, however, from the beginning of society, this instinct has been subjected
to distinct regulations and control. Marriage may be defined as the mechanism
of regulation and control of biological reproduction.

In the animal kingdom there are no definite rules for mating because they have
no society and social norms. But in human society there are various kinds of
social controls, religious limitations and even laws of marriage. For human
beings, the sex relations are allowed within certain permitted limits. Marriage
is a holy sanctifying, life long, comprehensive, loving union of a man and a
woman, leading to the procreation of children.

The Social Aspects of Marriage

We have seen that there are certain biological aspects of human marriage,
while there are more social aspects in it. These social aspects are most important
in human society. The basic factor in marriage is love. True love between the
man and woman in marriage is a complete giving of one to another. There
should be a union of the souls and minds. There should be a union of emotions
and wills. All these imply complete, exclusive and life long giving of ones self
to the other.

The Psychological Aspect of Marriage

Marriage is an integral part of human existence. In marriage man's basic
longing for communication and completeness finds its natural culmination.
Human beings find their fulfillment as men and women. Marriage is the means
by which two persons seeking a more perfect life give themselves totally to
each other.
In a marriage the male and female co~nplimenteach other. It fills the physical
and psychological void which exists in human being, if they are alone. Marriage
makes possible the satisfaction of the strong and natural ten iency of male and
female to be together in the union ii)r which nature has lesigned them.
The Legal Aspect of Marriage

The union between man and woman must be legitimate. So marriage should
get legal, social and civil acceptance. Legal sanction of marriage is based on
prevailing social norms and customs. It varies from one society to another. The
marriage can be legally contracted only by those who are able to perform the
basic act of marriage. The legal minimum age for marriage in India is 18 years
for girls and 21 years for boys.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of this unit.
Social Institution of What is the meaning of marriage?
1)
Marriage
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.3 THE FUNCTIONS AND PURPOSES OF

MARRIAGE
Have you ever thought of the question why a person should get married? The
first answer that comes to your mind may be for the propagation of the human
species. Let us try to find the answer.
Marriage for Union and Procreation

What is the purpose of marriage? If it is only for procreation, marriage is not

a must. Of course, one of the important purposes of marriage is union and
procreation. The union in marriage is a medium of physical, psychological and
spiritual communication of love and commitment of self.

Marriage for Sex

The natural end of sexual relationship is conception of children. Hence the

procreation of children is an essential purpose of marriage. An equally important
purpose is the union itself, the mutual love, pleasure and happiness of the
husband and wife. Marriage, therefore, fosters mutual love and attachment. It
provides for the legitimate expression of sexual satisfaction.

Marriage for Companionship and Friendship

The most important need of the human being is the intimacy in living with and
making a commitment to another human being. What is friendship? According
to Jennet Kid, "Friendship is having a privileged position in someone else's
life and giving them a privileged position in our own. It is sharing ourselves
with those we like".

Friendship is the cornerstone of marriage which lasts even when the sexual
desire is over. It remains even after the children are grown up and settled. It
only deepens with years. This is what is meant by companionship or friendship.
It enriches man and woman by increasing unselfishness and by deepening his/
her capacity for love, and sacrifice. Hence marriage is love, it is sex, it is
family, but ultimately and essentially it is companionship or fiiendship.

Marriage for Socialization

Marriage is a means through which the socialization and growth of a person

reach its fulfillment. It provides numerous opportunities to bring about security,
co-operation and love. Another purpose of marriage is to create a family to
provide the natural environment in which a person can realize himselfierself
and reach out to others in an attitude of dedication and service. It gives society
a firm base, and children a stable environment to grow.
Marriage for Matured Relationship Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
Still another purpose of marriage is attainment of maturity through the
establishment of relationships in marriage. Rearing and educating the children
also is a purpose of marriage. The parent-child relationship is an intimate
relationship.

Some Practical Purposes or Utilitarian Aspects of Marriage

1) It ensures security to women who have to undergo long periods of

pregnancy.

2) It provides security to the offspring.

3) It ensures the health life which gives stability to society.

4) It makes society more cohesive through relationships.

5) It simplifies blood relationships.

Check Your Progress I1

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of this unit.

1) What are the main functions of marriage?

..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.4 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF

MARRIAGE
It is interesting to study the historical development of marriage. When did it
commence? How did it attain its present structure and status? It is not easy to
get the facts about marriage in the prehistoric era. We have to depend upon
the studies of anthropologists and other available details of folklore and
traditions.
Even though the religious books mention marriage, we cannot conclude that
marriage came into existence with the beginning of human life on earth. In the
pre-historic ages people lived like animals and there were no social norms and
rules to guide them. But gradually due to his superiority over the animals, man
began to formulate some social patterns of behaviour.
Social Institution of In the early stages of human life, sexual life and procreation was a natcl,sl
Marriage
process. The earth was not owned by anybody. Nobody bothered to own the
land. But gradually man began to cultivate the land and came to know about
the productivity of the soil. This knowledge motivated him to own the land.
This also led to many disputes and fights for the ownership of land. Finally
they reached on agreement with regard to some type of control or laws about
the ownership of land. This is evident fiom social contract theory.
The desire of man to own the land, which is productive, led him to the idea
of owning any thing that is productive. Knowing that the woman can procreate
children, men tried to own more women and thereby get more and more
children. This also ended the conflicts and fights. Gradually restrictions and
regulations came in procuring women. This finally culminated in the form of
a social institution of marriage with all its laws and regulations and customs.

1.5 THE FAMILY

Just like marriage, family is also a very familiar term. We all come fiom
families. We see families around us. Family is an integral part of our life. Can
we answer these questions: What is a family? What is the need for a family?
Who constitute the family? Is it a mere union of parents and children? What
is the relationship between the members in a family? Is the family a human
invention or a natural evolution? Is it found among animals also? What are the
forms of family in different ages and different cultures?
The Need for a Family Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
The family was a necessary precondition for human evolution, for without it
human existence would not have been possible. The human infant is born
helpless. It has a potential for physical and mental development. But it requires
years to achieve its maturity. In the case of animals, their young ones are able
to take care of themselves shortly after birth. But for human beings the long
period of pregnancy and the prolonged helplessness in infancy and childhood,
needs a long association of parents. This has resulted in the formation of a
family.

The Evolution of the Family

The family as a group of parents and offspring's existed even before the
appearance of man upon this planet. Family like association is seen among
birds and higher mammals. The chimpanzee is a highly social creature which
lives in family groups. The family life of apes and human beings can be
compared. There is a selection of a mate, interaction between male and female,
levels of control among father, mother and children and a child is taken care
of primarily by mother.
There is a great deal of difference between the family life of apes, mammals
and birds and that of man. In the former case, the nature of family life throughout
the world is the same in any given species. But in the case of man, family
behaviour varies greatly from one society to another. In the animal family, the
behaviour of the members is motivated by instinct, whereas in the human
family it is motivated by culture. The animal family is largely biological in
nature, while in the human family its structure and functions are shaped by
culture.
According to many sociologists, man in caurse of his evolution might have
developed one or another family form as determined by situational and historical
factors. In short we can say that geographic environment, economic conditions
and culture rather than biological factors were the determinants of human
family patterns. In man, the family is not only a biological group it is first and
foremost a social institution.
The Definition of Family
We have seen that the structure and function of the family varies from place
to place. So it is difficult to give a definition of the term 'family'. However,
the definition of the family must include that which is common to the great
variety of human groups to which the term 'family' has been applied. There
are certain characteristics that are common to the human family in all times
and in all places that differentiate the family from other social groups. According
to Ernest W Burgess and Harvey. J. Lock, these characteristics are:

1) The family is composed of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood

or adoption. The bond between husband and wife is that of marriage, and
the relationship between parents and children is generally that of blood
and sometimes that of adoption.
Social Institution of
2) The members of the family typically live together under one roof a14
Marriage
constitute a single household. Sometimes, as in the past, the household is
large consisting of three or four or even five generations. Today the
household is small, consisting of the husband and wife with or without
one or two children.

3) The family is a unity of interacting and intercommunicating persons.

They play the roles of husband and wife, father and mother, son
and daughter, brother and sister. These roles are defined by the
community.

4) The family maintains a common culture derived mainly from the general
culture. Usually this culture is the outcome of the merging o i the two
cultures of the husband and wife.

On the basis of the above characteristics the family may be defined "as a
group of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood or adoption, constituting
a single household; interacting and communicating with each other in their
respective social roles as husband and wife, mother and father, son and daughter,
brother and sister and creating and maintaining a common culture".

A family is a community of people living together in an environment which

is a centre of healing, a place where one can live, where one can admit one's
frustrations, stupidities and anger to people who do not retaliate. It is in the
school of everyday family life, with all masks dropped and hypocrisies exposed,
that man, woman and child acquire the potential to know what it is to be truly
human, and fully human people have tried alternative arrangements for a
family. But none of them are as efficient as a family. Children thrive best when
they have a father and mother to love and protect them in a home. The parents
also need the life long commitment in which love is proved.

The Indian Family

The family system all over the world are changing today and family relations
are becoming weaker and weaker day by day. The influence of the family over
the children is weakening due to the great social, political and economic
changes. In the midst of these changes, India still has a time tested heritage
of stable family structure. It is still the basic unit of our society and the
medium of cultural transmission. The family still holds its solidarity and plays
an important role in the formation of values in our society.

In spite of the solidarity in the Indian families, a salient social transformation

is taking place in the Indian families also. With the empowerment of women
and the women getting more and more educated, the traditional family patterns
are gradually disappearing. Modernization has its roots in westernization and
it has questioned the traditional family values and structures. Parental influence
is also weakening day by day. The religious and moral values present in the
family are giving way to secular and pragmatic values.
 Marriage and Family:
Check Your Progress I11 Choosing Life Partner
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of this unit.

1) What is the need for a family in the growth and development of

person?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.6 TYPES OF FAMILY PATTERN

The three chief historical stages in the evolution of the family are:
i) the large patriarchal family characteristic of ancient society;
ii) the small patriarchal family which had its origin in the medieval period;
and
iii) the modern democratic or nuclear family which is the product of the
industrial revolution and the economic and social changes that followed..

The large patriarchal family was prevalent in China, India and Japan. Here the
senior male member was the head of the family. He lived with his children and
grand children which came up to four or five generations. The patriarch, the
head of the family, had supreme authority over all other members of the
family. This type of family was a result of the agricultural and pastoral mode
of existence.

The small patriarchal family was the second stage in trle evolution of the
family structure. It consisted of husband and wife and children and one or two
grandparents and one or two unmarried brothers and sisters of the husband and
wife. This type of family was mostly seen in urban areas where the members
used to work in industries. Here also the senior male member had the supreme
authority over the whole family.

The democratic or nuclear family consists of only the husband and wife and
the children. This type of family system is more prevalent in modern society.
Here the husband and wife share more responsibility and are more free. They
can take their own decisions. Children can also join in the decision making
consistent with the advancement in age.

In India we find three types of family structures which are almost identical
with the historical family patterns. They are:
Social Institution of 1) The large joint family;
Marriage
2) The nuclear family; and
3) The stem or extended family
Joint Family

The large joint family is almost like the large patriarchal family where three
or four generations of parents and off springs live together. This is mostly seen
in rural areas. These families are mostly agricultural families.

Advantages of the Joint Family

The joint family assures shelter for the aged and sick, social security for the
unemployed and support for the young couple. Children grow up in an
atmosphere of security and affection. The newly married couple get training
in family life and child care. The sons get the training from their father, uncle
and grandfathers. The daughters get it from their mothers, aunts and
grandmothers.

In a joint family, the wisdom and experience of the elders are shared. The joint
family has its own codes of behaviour and its own values which are transmitted
from one generation to the other generation. On the whole, we can say that the
joint family provides an umbrella of support which covers financial loss,
social security and even provides informal counselling.
Disadvantages of the Joint Family
In the joint family the supreme authority is vested in the senior male member.
So the whole life of the family goes according to nis efficiency and attitudes.
The junior members may not take up any responsibility and initiative. There
,is no freedom for the individuals, especially women. The head of the family
may not be able to adjust to the social changes that are taking place outside
the family. There will be a perpetuation of old customs and values.
Nuclear Family
In a nuclear family, the husband and wife live with their children. This is
mostly seen in urban areas. Both the husband and wife may be earning members
in such families.
Advantages
The husband and wife have the full freedom to act according to their own
ideas. There is more financial security and individual freedom. This type of
families can easily adapt to social changes. There is more responsibility and
initiative for all the members.
Disadvantages
There is nobody to help and guide the members, especially when some conflict
arises. The practical wisdom and emotional security offered by the joint family
is lacking in a nuclear family. There is nobody to look after the children.
Children miss the protection and affection of grand parents. Working mothers
are forced to leave the children either with the servants or in a day care centre.
 The Stem or Extended Family Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
This is midway between the joint family and the nuclear family. The husband,
wife and children live with one of their grand parents.
Advantages
This type of family has all the advantages of the joint family and the nuclear
family, provided the grandparents do not dominate. Children' are looked after
properly. Grandparents also may not feel the loneliness and will be happy with
their children and grandchildren. Parents c& give all the security and guidance
to their son and daughter, who are newly married.
Disadvantages
If the parents who live with their sonldaughter are too dominating, the young
couple may loose their freedom and individuality. There are chances of problems
, ,
with in-laws. For growth in marriage, it is desirable that the couple live on
their own.
Each system of family has its own advantages and disadvantages. But if the
members are cooperative and have concern for each other, the disadvantages
can be reduced to the minimum. The newly married couple who start their
family life should have the freedom and initiative of a nuclear family and the
emotional security and practical wisdom of a joint family. They should have
the feeling of the 'home' where one has full relaxation and recreation and can
live without masks.
Functions of the Family
I
i The family is the basic unit of society. Today's family faces lot of problems
1 due to the social changes. In spite of the problems in the family, it continues
to exist because it meets the needs of children, adults and society at large. The
family:

I provides for the reproduction of the race;

passes on the cultural heritage of the group;

provides physical security, protection and the materid opportunities for

living and growth;

meets the deep emotional needs of both children and adults and provides
for their social, emotional, intellectual and spiritual development;

develops in its members socially desirable character traits and acceptable

moral standards;

develops an orderly system of living among its members with provision

for eating, sleeping, school, work, etc., and

develops sound relationships among members of the family and between

them and their neighbours.
Social Institution of The family thus meets the basic physiological and psychological needs of its
Marriage
members.
The Social Role of the Family
Apart from the above functions the family has a social role also. The family,
being the basic unit of society, has a vital and organic link with society. It is
from the family that the citizens come and it is within the family that they find
the first school of social virtues. The family is the bridge between the child
and society. In the family, the child learns mutual respect, concern for others,
generous service, deep solidarity, personal responsibility etc. These are the
basic steps of social life. The family is thus the most effective means of
humanizing and personalizing society. The family is the custodian and
transmitter of values.
Society should also respect and foster the family. The family is the very first
cell in the social structure and the very first social union, which is indispensable.
The so-called developed countries have now realized the fact that their broken
families are heading towards a great social disaster so they are exhorting the
parents to strengthen the family ties. "Marriage and family are a union for
which there is no substitute. Nothing can take their place. You can even say:
as the families are, so will mankind be".

Check Your Progress IV

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of this unit.

1) Briefly explain the functions of the family?

..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.7 CHOOSING A PARTNER

Now that you have learned so much about marriage and family, you will be
in a position to answer the question "How will you choose your partner for
life" ? Marriage is a life-long commitment and relationship and hence the
selection of a partner is very important. The choice of an ideal partner is one
of the basic requirements for a successful marriage.
Suppose you are going for a journey. You would like to have a companion
who is agreeable to you in all respects. So what about your companion, who
is to travel with you through your whole life, till death? Marriage is one of the
three great events in life along with birth and death. Birth just happens and
death is beyond our control. Marriage is however something which can he
decided. We can decide whom to marry and when to marry.
There is a common saying among the Arabs " If you want to select a horse, Marriage and Family:
select from among hundred horses. If it is a friend it should be one among Choosing Life Partner
thousand. But if it is a wife, it is should be from thousands". This implies the
importance of choosing a partner in marriage. It should not be a casual or
careless selection. It should be a long thought out process.

Very few people are inclined to

analyse the factors that are to be
looked into in selecting a partner.
There is a common belief that
marriages are made in heaven or
it is fate, luck or providence. But
this issue of choice of spouse is
not something to be completely
left to fate or luck. A scientific
approach is necessary in the
selection. There are certain
determinants for mate selection.

The patterns of arrangement for

the selection of the mate differ
from culture to culture. In certain
cultures marriage is primarily a
social and economic
arrangement between two
families. Here the choice of the
mate is still the responsibility of
the parents. Parents select the bride or bridegroom for their children. The
young couple have little choice in this matter. They may not have the opportunity
to become acquainted before the wedding. This type of marriage is known as
arranged marriage.

Arranged marriages are now giving way to selection by the young people
themselves. Both procedures have their advantages and disadvantages. Mate
selection, when arranged by parents, stressed social and economic considerations.
They minimized or even ignored the sentiments of love and interpersonal
relations of the young people. The youngsters make the choice on the basis of
compatibility and personal attraction. They may not conform to parental
standards like caste, religion, economic security etc.
The best pattern is to let the young people find out heir own mates with the
guidance and consent of the parents. This pattern is known as guided choice.
Anyway, parents should guide their children without showing too much worry
or haste. Allow the young people to decide on their partners as far as they can.
But in every case, their elders should be the controlling factor. At the same
time, parents should not give the impression that they have a readymade
decision in their minds. Youngsters on their part should rely on their parents,
recognizing their experience and their sincere desire for the good of their
children.
Social Institution of As said earlier, marriage is a life-long relationship and commitment. There arc
Marriage
certain qualities or social expectations that are commonly appreciated in a
partner. There should be compatibility between the partners in maturity, health,
behaviour patterns or character, caste and religion, economic status, education
and intelligence, attitudes, and values or the basic orientation to life etc. Let
us consider them one by one.

Maturity
Under 'maturity' come physical maturity, emotional maturity and social and
intellectual maturity. Maturity is a term which comprises many things. When
we say that the partner should have the maturity for a married life, it means
the ability to take up the full responsibility of a family.
Age is one important factor that comes under physical maturity. According tu
the Indian Marriage Act, the minimum age for marriage for woman is 18 and
for man is 21. But from practical experience it is seem that the ideal age for
woman is 21 to 24 and for man is 25 to 30. By that time they are physically
mature and emotionally stable. If the man or woman lacks physical maturity
helshe may find it difficult to make marital adjustments and to take up the
responsibility as husband and wife and as parents.
What should be the age difference between the partners? Who should be
older? The social expectation is that the man should be older and there should
not be much difference of age between the partners. But for so many practical
reasons, it may not be possible to strictly adhere to this. Still, it is always good
to stick on to these expectations to avoid further complications later on. One
of the reasons for marital breakdown is the great or wide disparity of age
between husband and wife.
Emotional Maturity
It consists of the ability to control one's emotions and passions. Emotional
maturity helps to develop self-restraint and the attitude of self sacrifice. These
are the essential requisites for a happy married life. Emotional maturity can be
tested only at the times of crisis. He will adapt his course of action, overcome
obstacles and accept the inevitable with grace and calmness. To an immature
person, any frustration may bring about temper tantrums.
An emotionally matured person is able to avoid frequent bad mood and has
the ability to establish and.maintain personal relationships. He is able to endure
normal discomforts and disappointments and to overcome suspicion and
jealousy. In short, he has the ability to give and receive that is ability to love.
Empathy is another characteristic of an emotionally matured persons. It is
ability to perceive the feelings of others. It involves the willingness to recognize
the needs of others and to assume the responsibility of meeting them. Getting
married means taking up a responsibility for a life time. The partners have to
meet each other's needs, bring up children, support the family financially and
look after the members of the family. Life long commitment is one feature of
the responsibility of marriage. It is related to the stability that comes with
maturity.
 A clear sign of emotional maturity is the ability to reflect before speaking and Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
!
the readiness to talk with others. This is highly essential in husbandlwife
relationship.
!
f An emotionally mature person has, first of all, insight and foresight in his
thinking. He can evaluate himself as well as the world around him in a realistic
manner. k e can also face the facts of life realistically and anticipate the results
of his action. He develops a sense of independence. He is able to make his
own judgments and decisions.

The maturity which marriage requires is not the achievement of one day.
Emotional maturity can be achieved only by the satisfaction of the various
needs of the child at each stage of development. Proper disciplining of emotions
is necessary during the childhood for attaining emotional maturity, which results
in self-confidence, self-control and affectional maturity.

What is affectional maturity? It may be an unfamiliar term for you. It is the

capacity to relate with people of different groups. The infant is at first interested
in himselfherself or hisher mother. This interest is then shifted to playmates
of his own sex during school age and to the opposite sex during adolescence.
When the person comes to maturity, the affectional maturity is towards his
partner. One who is ready for marriage should have this affectional maturity
so as to develop a good husband wife relationship. This is basic requirement
for marital harmony.

Social Maturity

Social maturity is evident when one can relate oneself to others in a selfless
and responsible way. One should not think only in terms of immediate wish
fulfillments or satisfaction or personal desires. The main signs oT social maturity
are respect for others, honesty, frankness, courage and the ability to provide
whatever a family needs.

An emotionally mature person need not necessarily be socially mature if he

has not experienced a social life. Social maturity comes from the fulfillment
of one's quota of premarital living. Every boy and girl should have an experience
of social life before marriage. Usually after completing this education,
youngsters are employed and they have a 'free' time to assume the
responsibilities of life and mingle with people. During this time they may
come across persons of other sex, whom they may choose as their partners in
life. This is a time of fantasy. Any way, this free time before marriage is
essential for acquiring social maturity.

After exploring for a partner, they finally settle down, and are ready for marriage.
One characteristic of social maturity is one's willingiless to disregard unknown
potential marriage partners in their fantasy. They will be ready to commit
themselves to build up a relationship with a particular person.

It is also important to be independent for a while. Having just become free

from parents, it is too early to take one the bonds of matrimony. Spare time
can be used as one may deem fit. Jobs can be changed. Travels can be made
Social institution of , according to the availability of money and time. lVobody else's wishes have
Mamage
to be consulted, nor moods catered to.

Since they were more closely supervised than boys during childhood and
adolescence, they have yet to achieve a full sense of personal identity. Usually
many girls in India, especially in the rural areas, do not get this free time for
socialization and acquiring social maturity. This is because they are married
immediately after their schooling or graduation. Most of them'are not permitted
to work outside their homes. This is a real drawback as far as marriage is
concerned.

Intellectual Maturity

Intellectual maturity lies in the ability to understand persons, events, situations

and problems. It is the capacity to formulate one's ideas, opinions and judgments
without depending on others.

For developing intellectual maturity one must have a certain level of education
according to hisker social status. 0ne.must be able to give a meaning and
purpose to hisker life, if helshe is intellectually mature.

As we grow up, we gradually learn to understand and evaluate ourselves

better. We come to know of our own strengths and weaknesses, our abilities
and disabilities. We gain insight into our feelings, thinking and behaviour. We
also develop foresight. We learn to face realistically the facts of life and to
anticipate the results of our action. We learn to foresee the possible consequences
of our behaviour. We no longer permit our desires to dominate completely our
thinking or action.
Mature thinking and feeling express themselves in mature action and behaviour.
We show control and flexibility in our behaviour. We are neither rigid nor
compulsive but adapt our actions according to the situation. We can accept
authority and discipline as well as responsibility and power. We learn to co-
operate with the people and make the necessary adjustments and adaptation in
life.
An individual should show these signs of intellectual maturity before he/she
plans to marry. It is essential for promotion of desirable personality development
and adjustments in marriage. Self realization is essential to understand the
behaviour of others. "Know thyself' is an important principle in mental health.
For good marital adjustments, knowledge of self is an essential factor.
Only an intellectually matured person can know the limitations of others. A
person who aims at an unattainable goal meets with frustrations. Intellectual
maturity is essential for having 'frustration tolerance'. The married partners
need high frustration tolerance to face problem situations wisely and to make
wise decisions.
Now we have seen how important maturity in selecting a mate is. Only a
person having all the above types of maturation will be a good partner in
married life. Often it is not easy to evaluate correctly, the herself in the best
high, hiding the negative aspects on hislher personality. Therefore in mate
selection, it is necessary to go beyond the external appearance and behaviour. Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
You will have to closely observe the behaviour of the person in different
situation and circumstances. How a person acts in a crisis or a critical situation
will show hisher real self and maturity.
Health and Physical Structure
A happy married life is very closely related toathehealth of the partners. So
this is an important factor to be looked into in selecting a mate. The parents
should be healthy to have children of good health. In some western countries,
the partners have to produce a medical certificate before marriage. This .is
ideal, especially to eliminate people with hereditary diseases.
It is advisable not to have marriage relations between person having a close
blood relationship. The children born from such couples may have hereditary
diseases of both the families. It is also necessary to look out for the RH factor
of the blood. If the husband and wife have different RH groups i.e positive and
negative, it may affect the children. So care should be taken to see that the
partners has compatible blood groups.
HIV testing also should be done before marriage, wherever scope for doubt
exists, to avoid future problems and breakdowns. The presence of a health
defect in a person may not prevent one from marrying, but it is necessary that
both know about it and are ready to face its consequences together.

Physical structure is another factor in the selection of mate. There should not
be much disparity in physical structure (height, weight etc. colour and general
appearance). However, physical attraction or physical expectation in the Indian
context is that the husband should have a bigger structure than the wife.
Regarding general beauty, the usual practice is that .woman's beauty is more
looked into than a man's. In a man "manliness" is the usual criteria that is
looked for.

Physical appearance and beauty are relative terms and vary according to cultures.
This is not a very important factor in selecting a mate. Anyway, beauty should
not be the main criteria for selection. There is a Chinese rroverb "Marrying
a woman only on the basis of her beauty is like buying a suilding merely by
looking at the outside painting". Young people give too much importance to
this criteria which is not wise.

Behaviour Patterns or Character and Conduct

If you want to enroll for any course, you need a character or conduct certificate.
In order to enter into a profession also, very often you need a conduct certificate,
but to get married do you produce any conduct certificate? Unfortunately
many persons do not give enough importance to this aspect, which is one of
the most important criteria for mate selection. Even if your partner has all the
other physical qualities, economic and social status and education, if his
character i s not satisfactory, married life will be a real hell. At the same time
even if there is disparity in age, caste, religion, education etc. and the partner
has good character the marriage will still work.
Social Institution of
Marriage
Character in married life means good will, sense of humor, the ability to love,
honesty, responsibility, concern for others, give and take attitudes, cheerfulness,
discipline, faith in God, fidelity openness, values in life, etc. The couple has
a long life before them to spend together. Much of their happiness will depend
I
upon their ability to share, to agree and to work together. All this presuppose
in them the presence of strong similarities with regard to basic concepts of
life. There is no doubt that a certain amount of differences can be useful to i
enrich the partners. But ultimately the person who shows more similarities
should be considered as the best make.
According to the perspectives in psychology, a person's character is formed
during hisher early years of life. So hisher family is mainly responsible for
character formation. As in the case of maturity, it is very difficult to assess the
character of a person with whom we do not have an intimate personal
relationship. In choosing a partner this is not always possible. Hisher family
relationships and the life of the family can be taken as one of the important
sources for assessing the character. Persons brought up in unhappy, insecure,
and broken families may have many personality disorders and peculiar behaviour
patterns.
Some parents consider marriage as a solution for the behaviour problems of
their children, especially sons. A drunkard, a drug addict or a criminal may
marry a poor girl having low socio-economic status. The poor girl is supposed
to 'change the prodigal son'. Usually this ends up with a marital breakdown
and lot of misery for the girl. The innocent girl becomes a scapegoat.
Caste and Religion
When the selection of the bride or bridegroom is made by parents they insist
on caste and religion. But when the selection comes to youngster, we come
across many inter-caste and inter-religious marriages. Many of them are
successful. These types of marriages are good for social and national integration
- and harmony among different castes and religions. But there are many practical
problems of adjustments in such marriages. In India marriages are between
two families. The families may not accept such marriages and interfere with
each one's customs and life-style.
When two persons fiom two different castes or religions marry, they must be
willing to accept and respect each other's faith and values. Usually the problem
comes with the birth of a child. Both the parents will consciously or
unconsciously try to practice hisher own customs and values which result in
a conflict for the children. If both parents are strictly secular, such problems
can be eliminated to some extent.
It is safer to choose a mate fiom the same caste, religion and culture. Even in
the developed countries, where mate selection is done mostly by couples,
preferences are for mates from the same race, religion and culture.
Social and Economic Status
The partners should have as far as possible, the same economic and social
status. The family should have a stable income to pull on. Today dowry has
become a great social problem in India. Men are demanding huge amounts of
 money from the wife's home. Many bride burnings are due to the problems of Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
dowry. Of course, the girl should have an equal share of her father's wealth.
Usually this share is handed over to the boy at the time of marriage. In many
cases, the wife has no say about the dowry money, and it is considered as the
property of the husband and his family. In many marriages, dowry is the main
1 criteria for selecting the wife. This is very unfortunate.
t

The partners should have the financial stability to establish and run a family.
But the whole financial assistance should not be expected from the wife's
family. As far as possible the wife also should have an independent income.
Marrying a person who is very much above or below the economic and social
status may cause many adjustment problems for both the partners. In many
i love marriages, economic disparity may not be looked into which may result
L in marital problems later on. It is very difficult for love to flourish in a 'poor'
circumstance.

I Education and Intelligence

There should not be much disparity in these factors. In Indian villages, most
women are still illiterate, men do not consider literacy as a pre-requisite for
marriage. This is very sad state of affairs. Women should be educated to be
intelligent wives and efficient home managers. An educated mother is the best
i insurance for the education of her children. As in the case of physical structure,
I men in India prefer partners with equal or a little lower level of education. If
the wife is more educated, the husband may develop an inferiority complex.
Regarding intelligence, both the partners should be intelligent enough to manage
a home. Intellectual companionship between the partners is a very important
factor which is not given adequate emphasis in Indian marriages.
It is not advisable to marry persons who are mentally retarded. The intelligence
of the parents will be inherited by children to a very large extent. So intelligence
is an important factor in mate selection.
I
I Attitudes and Values - Basic Orientation to Life
I
Areas where strong similarity is required are attitudes and v:,iues and the basic
I orientation to life. These include goals, values, religious COI- .rictions and general
I
I ideas about justice, honesty, truth etc. A simple tolerance of other's beliefs or
conceptions is not enough to establish a life long partnership.
The partners should fully agree with the idea of marrialge, its meaning and
purpose. It is very important for them to have the same concept about fidelity,
reciprocal roles in the family, sex, children and in-laws. It is good to have a
spontaneous agreement in fields such as entertainment, participation in cultural,
social and political activity, religious practices and community life.
Temperamental compatibility of the mates prevents problems in marriages.
Temperament means the physiological activity level and response patterns of
the individual. The behaviour controlling glands of dne individual may be
different from that of another individual. Such biological al-ifferences help to
explain many of the conflicts in marriage. For example, why one spouse is
always active and the other inactive. To avoid all these problems, temperamental
compatibility should be given due importance in mate selection.
Social institution of Compatibility of needs is another factor which should be looked into the
Marriage
choice of the mate. There is evidence that persons seek a mate who will
compliment their strengths and deficiencies. Person with complimentary needs
tend to marry. Many boys and girls are attracted to each other because each
satisfies the other's need. The need so satisfied may be the need for love,
affection, sympathy, understanding etc.
Now we have seen some of the important qualities that are to be looked for
in a mate. The selection of partner is not an easy process. It is an ongoing
process which requires time and experience. It is better for the partners to have
an opportunity to become well acquainted with each other. This called courtship.
It provides the two persons the opportunity to test each other's feelings, ideas
and orientations to life. This may help them to decide whether a life together I
will possible. It also provides them occasions to reveal to each other the I
different sides of their temperaments.
Inspite of the above advantages of courtship, it is generally not followed or
accepted in Indian marriages. But it is a must in western countries. Anyway,
it is good to have some acquaintance with the partner before marriage.
One may not get a partner who can satisfj all the above criteria of mate
selection. Some compromises have to be made in some aspects. But once the
selection is made, one should accept hisher partner totally. 'Accept toto' is a
key word in marital success. Since it is not easy to change the behaviour of
an adult the only way is to accept your partner with hisher merits and demerits
and adjust accordingly.
There is no 'I' or 'You' in a marriage relationsllip, but only the 'We'. The
husband and wife should become one and at the same time keep their own
identities and individualities. The new Mathematics of marriage is 1+1 should
be 'big one'; it should never be a -2- or a -1 1- where the partners proceed in
two parallel lines which never meet.
Check Your Progress V
1

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of this unit.

1) What are the main criteria in selecting a partner?

..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.8 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, you have learnt about marriage, and family and the criteria for
, choosing a.partner. Marriage is a life long conscious commitment between a
nian and a woman. It is a contract, a union and an institution. Marriage has
 many biological, social, psychological and legal aspects also. The main functions Marriage and Family:
Choosing Life Partner
and purposes of marriage are, union and procreation, companionship and sex
and socialization of the individual.
1 Family is one of the oldest social institutions. The human being is the most
1
1
helpless creature at birth. It needs a long association with parents for its
growth and development. This resulted in the evolution of the family. A family
has certain distinct characteristics. It is a group of persons united by the ties
of marriage, blood relation or adoption. They live together under one roof. The
family members interact with each other in different roles as father, mother,
husband, wife, children etc., it has a common culture also.

In India the family system is still stable and has solidarity. There are three
types of families in India, the Joint Family, the Nuclear Family and the Extended
Family. Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages.

1 The family has many functions. It meets the needs of children, adults and
society. It provides for the reproduction of the race, physical security, protection
! etc. The family meets the physical, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual
, needs of all the members. It is the basic unit of our society.

The selection of a partner in marriage is very important, because it is a life

long commitment. The choice can be made by parents, by self or jointly by
both. There are certain social expectations that are commonly appreciated in
a partner. There should be compatibility between the partners in all aspects of
life. Some of these aspects are maturity: physical, emotional, social and
intellectual; character, caste and religion; economic status, education, attitudes
and values and orientation to life.

1.9 KEY WORDS

Compatibility : The capability of husband and wife to adjust with each other
in all areas of life.

Courtship : The time before marriage, when a boy and girl try to win the
affection of each other. In western countries there is usually
a period of courtship between the couples before marriage.
During this period they can know each other very intimately.

1.10 SUGGESTED READINGS

Alphone, Clemens. H. (1994), Marriage and Family, Prentice Hall Inc.
Englewood, N.J.

D'souza, Antony A. (1994), Sex Eucation and Personality Development, Usha

Publications; New Delhi.

D'souza, Antony (1979), Happiness in Marriage, Usha Publications, New

Delhi.
Social Institution of Grugni, Antony (1997), Exercises in Education to Love, Tej-Prasarin, Munlhai.
Marriage
Grugni, Antony (1994), Sex Education, Better Yourself Books, Mumbai.

Mascarenhas, Marie Mignon. (1994), Family Life Education/Value Education,

Sevadasan Training Institute, Bangalore.

Suriakanthi, A. ( 1994), Child Development, Kavitha Publications, Gandhigram.

Thomas, G. (1995), AIDS and Family Education, Rawat Publications, New

Delhi.

1.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS 7

Check Your Progress I

1) The term marriage has different meanings for different people. Marriage
is a relationship. It is one of the deepest and most fulfilling of human
relationships. For some people marriage is an institution. Marriage is
described as a freely made contract between psychological aspect and a
legal aspect as well.

Check Your Progress I1

1) Marriage has many purpose and functions. One of the most important
purpose of marriage is union and procreation. Marriage is also for sex and
companionship. It also helps for the socialization of the individual.
Marriage creates a family to provide the natural environment in which a
person can have full growth and development.

Check Your Progress I11

1) The human infant is born helpless. It requires years to achieve physical

and mental maturity. So the child needs a long association with parents.
Hence the human being needs a family for its growth and development.

Check Your Progress IV

1) Family has many functions in society like reproduction of the race, passing
the cultural heritage and providing physical security and protection. Family
contributes to the emotional, social and spiritual development of its
members. Apart from these family has social functions also.

Check Your Progress V

1) There should be compatibility between the partners in maturity: physical,

emotional, social and intellectual; health, behaviour patterns, caste, religion,
economic status, education and intelligence, attitude and values or the
basic orientation to life. The partners should have the same concept about
the purpose and functions of their marriage and family.
 Lineage and Descent
A unilineal group of kin who trace their descent from a known common ancestor is
a lineage. A lineage is a unilineal descent group and is a consanguineal group.

The members of a lineage claim their descent from a common known ancestor and
at the same time they can actually demonstrate the links between themselves and
their known ancestor. This shows that lineage is based on Demonstrated Descent.
Depending upon the types of rules of descent on which the lineages are based, they
can be classified into patrilineages, matrilineages and ambilineages.

A unilineal group of kin who trace their descent from a known common male
ancestor is a patrilineage. It is based on demonstrated patrilineal descent.
Patrilineages are found among the Witoto Red Indians of Amazonia, Yanomamo
Red Indians of Southern Venezuela and Miwok Red Indians of California. They
are also found among the Nuer of Africa and also among the agricultural societies
of Indiaand China.

A unilineal group of kin who trace their descent from a known common female
ancestor is a matrilineage. It is based on demonstrated matrilineal descent.
Matrilineages occur among the Veddas of Ceylone, Kurtchin of Northern Canada,
Tikopia of South Pacific and in India, among Khasi and Garo of Meghalaya.

A consanguineal kin group each of whose members can trace their descent from a
known common ancestor, either a male or female, constitutes an ambilineage. It is
also called a ramage or a sept. Ambilineages occur among Nukuros of Micronesia,
Samoans of Polynesia and Iban of Sarawak and also among the pastoralist societies
of Tibet. Ambilineages are also reported from the agricultural societies of Japan.

Characteristics of Lineages

1. Lineages are named: They can also have labels, symbols or even
designations. In a very few societies, lineages are not named.
2. Lineages are exogamotis: Since the members of a lineage are consanguine,
i.e., related by blood, they have to choose their spouses from other lineages.
Thus lineages in every society regulate marriages through exogamy.
3. Lineages have common religious obligations: The lineages may have their
own deities, priests and peculiar rituals for dealing with the supernatural.
Lineages involve in the veneration of their respective ancestors. In fact,
 ancestor worship is one of the most important mechanisms through which
lineages organize their living members.
4. Lineages are characterized by corporate property ownership: In a majority
of the societies, lineages act as a corporation because it owns property and
controls the use and inheritance of this property. In this sense each lineage
functions as a corporation in many societies. However in some societies the
individual families within a lineage own property. In few societies lineages
do not own property.
5. Every lineage is a corporate enterprise: Its members may co-operate for
economic purpose such as hunting, fishing, and, or even ceremonial
purposes. In some societies, other types of kinship groups may act as
corporate enterprise.
6. Lineages are units of social control: It regulates the behavior of its
members. Every lineage may have its own laws to regulate and punish the
members of its group. Thus a lineage is playing a deliberate role in enforcing
the laws of the society among the members of its group.
7. Lineages are characterized by mutual aid: A lineage supports its members
on important occasions in the life cycle. Lineages come to the rescue of its
members in the time of need.
8. Lineages also constitute feuding groups: Lineages within a single clan feud
with each other and then at times unite to fight the members of other clans.
The Nuer of Sudan and Tiv of Central Nigeria are the examples of the
societies where the lineages are feuding groups.
Theories of
Social Stratification
Unit 27
Gender and Social Stratification
Contents
27.1 Introduction
27.2 Weber, Marx and Stratification
27.3 Gender and Social Stratification in Cross-Cultural Perspective
27.4 Status of Women
27.5 The Indian Context
27.6 Caste and Gender
27.7 Tribe, Gender, Stratification and Change
27.8 Conclusion
27.9 Further Reading
27.10 References

Learning Objectives
After you have read this unit you will be able to
discuss gender and stratification
discuss the contribution of Marx and Weber to understanding of social
stratification

27.1 Introduction
In most societies the tasks of women are clearly differentiated. In the West
as well as in the middle class sections of Indian society, men have been seen
to be the bread winners and women were expected to take care of the
house and raise children. This arrangement used to be considered as ‘natural’
and complementary, having roots in the biological makeup of the sexes. The
economic dependence of women and sexual division of labour were closely
interlinked.

The ideology of ‘naturalness’ of division of labour has been challenged as

women started entering the labour force in large numbers in the West. The
rise of feminist movement in the west raised questions about division of
labour and almost universal subordination of women across societies and
cultures. The questions like has employment changed women’s status? Are
they facing double burden of performing jobs which are negatively valued.
For example housework not being considered as work whereas paid work
outside the household as work. Statistics show that women all over the
world earn much less than men for the same work. Occupations are also
segregated along gender lines. Other questions relate to women’s active
participation in work force, its consistent devaluation and women’s exclusion
from decision making. In understanding these issues we look for answers in
the stratification theories.

Feminist scholars resist to treat the problem of women essentially an artifact

of the contemporary system of economic exploitation. They have argued
that the oppression of women is not to be seen as ‘secondary’ to class
oppression as a whole. Women are oppressed as a class by men and patriarchal
structures are geographically and historically almost universal. The major axis
136
of differentiation in prevailing society is not class but gender and it is Gender and
Social Stratification
women who wait for the ‘longest revolution’. Gender in class stratification
theories attempts to uncover the sources of structured inequality and social
change. Both Marxists and Weberians have been engaged in empirical research
which both document and attempt to explain the forms and structures of
inequality. It has been widely criticized that the class situation of family
members is ‘derived’ from that of the main breadwinner who is usually a
man. The question of gender raises serious problem for both theoretical and
empirical work in social stratification. The active participation of women in
all walks of life, the decrease in the number of households that have only
male bread winners, passage of new laws created an environment for women’s
location in social stratification. According to Newby (1982) the issue of gender
inequality arose from women’s movement.

27.2 Weber, Marx and Stratification

Weber observed that societies can be stratified according to their degree
for class or status formation, providing the most important and basic fact of
social stratification theory. The first form of inquiry concerns with the extent
to which class or status systems are the predominant modes of social action
at the societal level. Theories of social stratification then presuppose as
their explanatory object the inter and intra-societal variability of class or
status formations. At this time the question of sexual inequality treated in
terms of division of labour (Marxist approach) which considers women as
‘reserve army’ i.e. The labour of women could be called upon to facilitate
expansionary ‘deskilling’ clerical work as well as in periods of acute labour
shortage such as in wartime. According to Max Weber economic and
technological changes favour class stratification and pushes status stratification
in the background.

Since the determination and explanation of the variability of class and status
formation have been the central concerns of the study of social stratification,
the documentation of the inequality of opportunities and outcome occupied
a subordinate place. It was justified on several grounds. First, because of
interest in the distribution of unequal rewards, life-chances and how different
social arrangements could procure ‘better’ outcomes and opportunities. The
second season was the importance given to the explanation of ‘outcomes’
of class or status differentiation, which were considered as by-product of
stratification analysis. These approaches never gave serious thought to issues
of gender inequality, because the emphasis was on class polarisation and
status-group consolidation. Earlier it was always presumed that gender
relations are usually heterosexual and therefore crosscut by class and status
relations. It gave bearing on the view that gender relations are somehow
similar to ethnic relations.

Box 27.1: Marx and Patriarchy

Marxist school of thought has led to the conceptualisation of sexual division
in terms that have less to do with actual social relationship or patterns of
social interaction, that with the determination of the ‘place’ of female
labour within the class structure and of its ‘functions for capital’. A major
question arose from this perspective is whether or not female domestic has
always had difficulties in formulating a stable and coherent theory of action
which could relate the analysis of objective class position and of system
contradictions to class formation. There was a fundamental difference from
the kind of analysis that has accreted around the concept of ‘patriarchy’ 137
Theories of
Social Stratification which refers to patterns of behaviour or forms of social interaction. Both
Marxists and patriarchy approaches also differ on whether women constitute
a class or not, while patriarchy is seen as a structure of social relations in
men are privileged systematically and women disprivileged in such a variety
of social contexts that it makes sense to think of gender relations as a form
of ‘stratification’.

Patriarchy constitutes a type of social formation that has been improperly

ignored by conventional stratification analysis. According to Mann (1986) the
omission of gender as a basis of social stratification created a crisis in
stratification theory. The five main areas of stratification theory, which have
been influenced by Gender, are individual, the family and household, the
division of labour between the sexes, social class and nation-states.

27.3 Gender and Social Stratification in Cross-

Cultural Perspective
The unequal accesses to resources, opportunities and rewards and to rights
between men and women are legitimised by patriarchy across societies and
cultures. Status inequality between men and women is not a new phenomena
which is reinforced through patriarchy and its institutions, gendered division
of labour and social institutions like marriage, dowry, property and inheritance
and subordination. Sylvia Walby (1994:22-28) observes that patriarchy is not
only differential distribution of power but also it is built into the very
mechanism of production.

Reflection and Action 27.1

Write a note on gender in a cross-cultural perspective. Discuss your views
with your friends.

Feminist sociologists working on the concept of class have challenged its

basis solely derived from man’s occupations. A major concern of feminist
critique has been to consider what modification of class boundaries would
be necessary if women in paid work are to be considered as well. Secondly
they have sought to reevaluate the contribution of women’s work to the
family.

Cross cultural research on sexual division of labour attempted to describe

wide range of women’s productive activities in societies with different
mode of subsistence but also the status implications of these on status of
women.

For feminist anthropologists right from the very beginning the chief concern
has been to explore the causes of universal gender inequality. They sought
to explain its origin and perpetuation in terms of sociological, cultural and
material terms. Each of these explanations rested upon a major dichotomy
which was taken to be universal: public/domestic, nature/culture and
production/reproduction.

In feminist anthropology, the relationship of gender with social stratification

has been conceptualised primarily in the way gender informs social structures
as a symbolic construct and as a metaphor for social action. Gender is
conceptualised as symbolic representations and the behaviour of women
138 and men and their relations. Anthropologists like Rosaldo, Lamphere and,
Ortner identified gender and kinship as the basis of social inequality whereby Gender and
Social Stratification
recognising how women’s access to property and decision making etc. are
subsumed within larger ideological, material and political contexts of kinship
structures.

Ortner and Whitehead (1981) proposed a model of prestige structures which

is defined as the set of prestige positions or level that result from a particular
line of social evaluation, the mechanisms by which individuals arrive at a
given level or positions, and the overall conditions of reproduction of the
system of statuses(ibid..13).

Gender, they argued, is one such prestige structure, and in every human
society, man and woman compose two differentially valued terms of a value
set, men being men, higher (ibid..16). They suggested that male prestige is
linked to ‘public roles’, such as chief or a Brahman, while female prestige is
defined in relation to men, in such roles as wife, sister and mother, in other
words female structures are encompassed within the male structures.
Conceptualising gender as one of the prestige structures pushed the gendered
analysis of social stratification across societies.

Anthropological literature suggests that women’s work outside of household

and in subsistence economy indicates as well as reinforce generally egalitarian
relations between women and men. Women’s in Vanatinai have access to
power both through their control of the economic capital of land and through
their accumulation of symbolic capital in exchange and mortuary ritual. But
among horticulturists in highland New Guinea, women raise staple crops but
men raise prestige crops that are the focus of social exchange.

Box 27.2: Division of Labour

This cultural valuation is the foundation for gender stratification that is then
reinforced by gender ideologies of male superiority and a high degree of
sexual antagonism between men and women. Meigs (1990) describes a
“chauvinistic” ideology that is rooted in men’s role as warriors. The division
of work among Mundurucu, an Amazonian horticultural society, where men
hunt, fish and fell the forest area for gardens while women plant, harvest
and process manioc. Men work at Mudurucu has more assigned value. As
Murphy and Murphy (1985) state “Male ascendancy does not wholly derive
from masculine activities but is to a considerable degree prior to them”.
Male domination is traditionally symbolic. According to Martin and Voortries
(1975) the decline in female participation in agriculture is that the female
domestic workload tends to increase when root crops are replaced by cereal
crop and when animal labour replaces manual labour.

Women’s value is defined by their reproductive abilities rather than by their

productive activities. Bride wealth is considered as compensation to the
bride’s parents or her kin for the productive and reproductive rights of the
bride; dowry as a form of inheritance provides a bride with land and other
wealth and helps her to attract a husband.

In traditional patriarchal Irish family (studied by Arensberg & Kimball (1940)

work was divided by gender and age. The division of labour considered
“natural” and power in the hands of men. Pastoral societies are also generally
characterised by patriarchy and a dichotomisation of the sexes, both
symbolically and socially segregation of the sexes and gender stratification
139
Theories of are fundamental attributes of many pastoral societies. Campbell (1964) who
Social Stratification
studied “Sarakatsoni of Greece” says that the life of pastoral ‘Sarakatsoni’
revolves around three things: sheep, children and honour gender ideology is
embedded in these three valued items. The ultimate authority lies with the
male despite the fact that female contributes equally in all aspects of life.

27.4 Status of Women

Generalisations are often made about the status of women according to
different modes of adaptation but these studies show that great amount
diversity persists. To understand gender stratification, the interlinkage of
both ideology and participation in production must be understood. As Atkinson
(1982: 248) states, “It is too facile to deny the significance of sexual
stereotypes or to presume that women’s influence in one context cancels
out their degradation in another, just as we know that women’s status is
not a unitary phenomenon across cultures, we need to be reminded that
the intra cultural picture is equally complex.” Socialist feminist scholars,
however, maintain that patriarchy precedes class inequality. They clearly
show that new forms of subordination and gender asymmetry have superseded
the old, leaving patriarchal control undisturbed. Industrial work privileged
men who took control over the earnings and social power while leaving
women as dependents.

Leela Dube, Eleanor Leacock and Shirley Ardener (ibid:xi) provide a cross-
cultural perspective; focusing upon the insignificance and passivity of women
and the primary of men in various societies. Leela Dube observes that making
women invisible despite their obvious preference and effective visibility is
the root cause of their low status in society.

Inequalities of gender can be explained by “gender regimes” which is a

cluster of practices ideological and material, which in a given social context,
acts to construct various images of masculinity and feminity and thereby to
consolidate forms of gender inequality (Connell, 1994: 29-40). According to
Kabeer (1995:37) ‘biology is gendered as well as sexed’. Male and female are
translated as man and woman based on mutually exclusive traits of masculinity
and feminity.

Women are attached to a two-fold stratification i.e. in relation to men and

in relation to other women. Gender structures different spheres of male-
female inequality.

Many egalitarian societies in the contemporary world are characterised by a

division of labour whereby men hunt and women gather. Friedl (1975:78)
outlines four reasons for this division i.e. the variability in the supply of
game, the different skills required for hunting and gathering the incompatibility
between carrying burdens and hunting and the small size of semi nomadic
foraging population. Despite the common assumption that men hunt and
women gather, there is no sharp division of labour. The Tiwi, Australian
aborigines who live on Melville Island off the coast of Northern Australia both
men and women hunt and gather. Women are considered economic assets
and a source of wealth and prestige for men. Women acquire social status
and can be politically influential. Goodale (1971) suggests that Tiwi culture
emphasises the equality of men and women in society. Among the Agta
Negritos of North Eastern Luson, the Philippines women enjoy greater social
140 and economic equality with their men compared to Tiwi of Australia. They
make significant contribution to the daily food supply and also control the Gender and
Social Stratification
distribution of the food they acquire, sharing them with their families and
trading them in the broader community. This challenges the widely held
notion that in foraging societies pregnancy and child care are incompatible
with hunting. They have developed methods of contraception and abortion
to aid them in spacing their children.

In horticultural societies, in which cultivation and farming is required by the

use of hand-tool technology women play important roles in production.
Lepowsky points to gender egalitarianism among the horticultural and
matrilineal people of the pacific island of Vanatani. He says that the prominent
position of women in Vanatinai exchange and other activities.

27.5 The Indian Context

According to Kalpana Bardhan (1986;94) “Although the family is the salient
units of analysis for stratification studies, whether based on class or caste
analysis, it is not quite sufficient situated within the broader framework,
the division by sex and the status of women affect its properties of stability
and dynamics”.

Reflection and Action 27.2

Write briefly on patriarchy, economy, and class structure. Put down the main
points in your notebook.

In Indian society, besides family as a basic unit of stratification the role of

kinship, family and everyday relations, the role of male head of the family,
status equality between men and women are some of the questions, which
needs examination. Michael Mann (1986:40-56) discusses patriarchy, economy
and class structure. According to Mann compartmentalisation of women persists
despite involvement of women in politics, development programmes and
processes and feminism. Indian society has been divided into purushjati and
stree jati. To conceptualise women and write about them, Nita Kumar (1994:4)
suggests four ways to deal i.e. by making women the object of human ‘gaze’
by seeing women as actors and subjects by giving them the prerogative of
males, by focussing on the patriarchal, ideological discursive within which
women exist and which seemingly control them without a chance to get out
of them, by looking at the hidden, subversive ways in which women exercise
their agency. She raises some questions like desirability of having women as
subjects and to replacing of the masculine, rational, free subject into a
feminine one.

According to Monisha Behal’s (1984) work in Mainpuri district in west Uttar

Pradesh, women’s lives in the village are full of gloom and sadness because
of work overload, bad health, drudgery and poverty. Madhu Kishwar and Ruth
Vanita (1984) pose the women’s question by highlighting the incompatibility
of Indian constitutional Law, violence, aggression and crimes against women.
Mahatma Gandhi viewed that women has infinite capacity for sufferings
because she is the mother of man has also been critically examined. Joanna
Liddle and Rama Joshi (1986) studied the Indian women in the context of
interconnections between gender, caste and class. They explained that the
patriarchal upper castes tightened both caste and gender division as they
consolidated their economic supremacy and defended challenges to that
supremacy.
141
Theories of
Social Stratification Box 27.3: Women and Dalits
Status asymmetry of genders is part of the larger social structure which is
reinforced through caste and family values. Gender and caste are important
aspects of class exploitation. Women in the Indian society are stratified
along caste, class, religious and ethnic boundaries thus no generlisations on
the status become possible. Women are stratified. Women from Dalit sections,
suffer from triple oppression — caste, class, gender.

Divided by economic inequality and the ideology of hierarchy Indian women

hardly share interests. It has been found that work is prime mover of
women’s status because there is a correspondence between economic
stratification, social hierarchy and differentiation of female work pattern
and employment modes. Caste oppression, class exploitation and gender
inequities are more stable and durable as they are practiced within the
family.

Women’s movements in India have mainly focused on those issues which

seem to cut across boundaries such as violence against women, work related
inequalities, access to education and employment, health, social recognition
of work of house wives and remuneration for their work, political repression
and under representation, price rise etc.

Raising issues of exploitation and oppression in different spheres of life i.e.

family, marriage, economy, religion and politics, feminists seem to cover a
large vista of gender concerns in diverse Indian contexts.

In all kinds of writings it has been admitted that patriarchy, stratification

system and status of women are closely inter-related and any kind of positive
change in the status of women would be an attack on patriarchy and
stratification system. Through a symbolic analysis unequal practices have
been seen express deep seated cultural valuations of what it is to be a
masculine and feminine. Leela Dube (op. cit.) discusses the relationship
between man and women by using metaphoric concepts of ‘seed’ and the
earth in various patrilineal cultures as justification of gender asymmetry.

Women in literary writings have been projected in a conservative form. In

the last three decades large spate of writings on various aspects of gender
inequality challenge the invisibility of women in economy, denial of
unemployment, decision making and violence and crime against women as
male privileges.

The abolition of landlordism and the breakdown of its socio– cultural milieus
have affected women in a positive manner. Mencher and Saradamoni (1983:A
–167) find that female income is essential for below poverty line houses.
Most of the women are engaged in three types of work: (a) participation in
the traditionally defined labour force (b) domestic work plus activities like
alone. Even these women are victimized because of their sex and poor
economic back-ground.

Karuna Ahmad finds (1979 : 1435 – 40) five trends in women’s employment:
(a) clustering of women in a few occupations (b) clustering either in low
status occupation or in the lower rungs of the prestigious profession, (c)
women receive lower salaries than men, (d) high proportion of highly educated
142 and professionally trained unemployed women.
Studies suggest that women’s professional locations reflect their position in Gender and
Social Stratification
society in terms of caste and class backgrounds and educational achievements.
Perceptions regarding status among women are shaped by modern education
than the traditional values regarding marriage and family.

Agnihotri (1996) and Agarwal (1984) gave preference for Marxist approach in
analysing women. Agarwal proposes that a number of questions which would
have a bearing on gender relations will get obfuscated in the organisation of
production and relations of production. But despite the metaphor of reforms
and individuation of women, emphasis on chastity, patriarchy, division of
Labour, sacredness of Marriage seclusion with the household has persisted

27.6 Caste and Gender

The three basic characteristics of caste are:
i) Exclusion or separation i.e. rules governing marriage and contact, which
maintains distinctions of caste.
ii) Hierarchy i.e. the principle of order and rank according to status.
iii) Interdependence i.e. the division of labour which is closely tied to
hierarchy and separation.

These three analytically separable principles of the caste system operate

through units based on kinship. Women’s lives are largely lived within familial
parameters. The centrality of the family and household remains very important
in their lives (Dube,1996: 1- 27).

Women’s work contributes substantially to the occupational continuity of a

caste group. significant continuities in the link between caste and occupation
can be seen with respect to Brahmin is still acting as a Purohit (priest) for
upper and middle level castes. Among artisan castes of goldsmiths, blacksmiths,
potters and weavers, many are still using their traditional profession for
their living and women are helping them directly or indirectly at all levels of
work. Basket weaving is a joint activity of men and women. In rural areas
and small towns it is common for women from households of petty traders
and shopkeepers to grind spices and prepare fries, fritters and preserve for
sale in the family shop. It is a fact that occupational continuity of a particular
caste depends largely on women (ibid).

Jajmani relations, short-term contractual affiliation between artisans and

service castes and land owners, cultivators and traders, and relations of
exchange among occupational castes, a feature of many rural and semi-urban
areas, function at the level of family. Both men and women render services
and receive remuneration in case and kind for their work. We can see in
every region of India there are specific ‘Untouchable’ castes whose women
work as midwives: these women, along with the men of their caste, share
the essential task of removing pollution of upper and clean castes. The bond
or contract which ties labourers to their masters is understood to include
the services of both the husband and the wife (ibid).

The necessity of continuing with occupational work is an important basis for

marrying within the caste. Women’s contribution to occupational continuity
is carried out within patrilineal limits and under the impositions and controls
of caste. A woman’s education may also be restricted keeping the work
demands and marriage market in mind.
143
Theories of In difficult times of the family, Scheduled Caste women generally do works
Social Stratification
of scavenging but not the men. It is held that since women are used to
doing domestic work for their own household, can do similar kind of work
for others. The men feel that it is below their dignity to do such works or
jobs. Among migrant families, women are often the principle supporter of
the family. But the controls are retained at this time also. Social and ritual
matters are discussed and decided upon by the males of the caste with in
the neighborhood (ibid).

Food and Rituals: Food constitutes a critical element in the ritual idiom of
purity and pollution. The concern of purity and pollution centering on food
begin at home. The prescriptions and prohibitions regarding food for women
are governed by principles of kinship, marriage and sexuality. Women play
key role in maintaining the sanctity and purity of home. Notions of safety
relating to both purity/pollution and the ‘evil eye’ entail a variety of
restriction and constraints on women in the tasks of processing, preserving,
cooking and distributing food. In situation away from home and their locality
men tend to be more relaxed about rules of commensality, in a similar context
women are both chaperoned and watched over carefully and are expected
to follow rules more strictly (ibid).

There is a pervasive notion that women never attain the level of purity of
men of their own caste. It is well known that traditionally women of twice-
born castes have been equated with Shudras who could not be initiated
into the learning of the Vedas (ibid).

Marriage and sexual relations constitute a central arena in which caste

impinges on women’s lives. The cultural apprehension of the vulnerability of
women and the emphasis on their purity and restrained behaviour which
emphasises on limited interaction with opposite sex, are important
components of management of female sexuality in a caste society. The strong
patriliny in North India institutionalizes control of sexuality and fertility of
women. In the case of an unattached woman, pregnancy is a disaster because
in partrilineal society the issues of caste boundaries and her own purity are
involved.

Growing up of a female child is marked by severe controls, idealization of

familial roles, and emphasis on female modesty and strong value attached to
virginity of female. Women are expected to retain the purity of caste at all
life stages.

The pre-pubertal phase is looked upon as intrinsic purity stage and it is

celebrated in a number of ways, like worshipping and feeding virgin girls on
8th day of Navaratri. This calls for restrained behaviour on their part and
emphasises the need for protection and vigilance. In Indian society, restrained
and controlled sexuality is a pre-requisite for socially sanctioned motherhood
(Dube ibid). Even in urban areas middleclass women working in the public
work sphere experience pressures to confirm to the image of ‘good woman’
and face sexual harassment.

The principles of sexual asymmetry underlie the relationship between caste

endogamy and dowry, the different fates of men and women in inter-caste
unions and the sexual abuse of women. Sexual mores and restrictions are
less severe in case of ‘lower caste’ women. Men have mechanism by taking
144 purifactory bath and the ritual expatiation of the offence to escape pollution
which occurs through sexual intercourse with a low caste woman, but the Gender and
Social Stratification
same is not accepted in case of ‘upper caste’ female, she is banished,
declared dead to the family. Inter-caste marriages especially in rural India are
still not tolerated and many cases of killing the couples have been reported
in the recent past. Sexual violence against lower caste and tribal women is
not an uncommon feature here.

M.N. Srinivas (1976: 90) has pointed out that in contemporary caste society
cognate jatis tend to get telescoped to form a single entity for purposes of
marriage caste both imposes constraints and creates the dominant ethos
which underlie the practice of dowry within Hindu society. The increasing
social and economic differentiation has increased the demand and expectation
on the part of the groom’s family.

27.7 Tribe, Gender, Stratification and Change

For long it was assumed that tribal societies were not stratified along caste
and class in the Indian context and the gender relations were seen to be
near egalitarian. Tribal Women’s status was also seen to be much higher than
the caste women since concepts of purity and pollution did not apply to
them and women enjoyed considerable autonomy in sexual and marriage
affairs. Despite women’s major contribution to tribal economy, they were
excluded from inheritance of property and political decision making. Recent
literature suggest that tribal societies are changing at a fast pace. Colonialism,
coexistence with caste groups, missionaries, industrialisation, education,
political democratisation etc have influenced them to a great extent. Gender
asymmetry which always existed in these groups has multiplied and become
more complex due to import of outside influences and growing stratification
based on wealth and power (Mehrotra, 2004). Gendering of politics and the
state are other major areas of concern. Women’s right to vote and the
constitutional provisions for gender equality could not ensure women’s active
participation in the political realm and statutory bodies. Their exclusion from
public decision making bodies is near complete. Gender inequality is inbuilt
into state’s seemingly progressive policies as highlighted by Swaminathan
(1987,cf. Sharma,1997). She picks up Minimum Wages Act and the Equal
Remuneration Act as well as policies for women’s education and the Hindu
Law of Succession. Women’s movements in India have created a great deal
of awareness and gender issues have come to the centre stage. Women’s
organisations raising questions of gender inequality and empowerment have
been operational at both grassroots and other levels of Indian society,
employing local strategies in resisting social and economic oppression
(Mehrotra, 2002). National and international agencies have created spaces
through NGO action in rural and tribal areas for economic as well social
development. The much debated and practiced phrase women’s empowerment
has become the buzz word and a quiet revolution is taking place at grassroots
level through women’s active participation in development process. Agarwal
(1994), however, notes that effective rights in land alone can empower
women. Women’s struggles are about bringing social transformation and
emancipation from cultural bondage which keeps the stratification stable.

27.8 Conclusion
From the above discussion it is clear that a gender informs and organises
social stratification as one of the organising principles like race, class, caste
or status. Gender in interface with race and class determines the structure
145
Theories of of western society, whereas caste and gender enter into class laying down
Social Stratification
the structure of action for its members in the Indian context. The
understanding of status implications in social life and everyday routine of
men and women are symbolically represented in ideological and material
aspects of society.

The question of gender and stratification is not to be understood in terms

of inequality between men and women and in terms of subordination of
women alone. Recent researches on masculinity also suggest maleness to be
the symbolic construct as the femaleness is, reflecting that how gender as
a cultural construct expresses the relational dimension rather than the
individual attributes across societies and cultures.

27.9 Further Reading

Arensberg, Conrald M. and Solon T. Kimball, 1940, Family and Community in
Ireland. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

Bretell, C.B. and C.F. Sergeant (eds.), 2001, Gender in Cross Cultural
Perspective.New Delhi, Prentice Hall

Dube, Leela, Eleanor Leacock and Shirley Ardener (eds.) 1986, Visibility and
Power: Essays on Women in Society and Development. Delhi, Oxford University
Press

Kishwar, Madhu and Ruth Vanita, 1984, In Search of Answers: Indian Women’s
Voices from Manushi. London, Zed Books

27.10 References
Agarwal, Bina, 1984, A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South
Asia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Agnihotri, Indu, 1996, ‘Bringing Land Rights Centre-state’, Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. XXXI, No.9: 526-29

Ahmad Karuna, 1979, ‘Studies of Educated Working Women in India: trends

and Issues’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.XIV, No.33: 1435-40

Arensberg, Conrald M. and Solon T. Kimball, 1940, Family and Community in

Ireland, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

Atkinson, Jane, 1982, ‘Review: Anthropology,’ Signs 8:236-258

Bardhan, Kalpana, 1985, ‘Women’s Work, Welfare and Status: Forces of Tradition
and Change in India,’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XX, No 51 and 52:
2207-20 and pp. 2261-69

Behal, Monisha, 1984, ‘Within and Outside the Courtyard: Glimpses into
Women’s Perception,’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XIX, No.41: 1775-
77

Bretell, C.B. and C.F. Sergeant (eds.), 2001, Gender in Cross Cultural
Perspective, New Delhi, Prentice Hall

Campbell, John K, 1964, Honour, Family and Patronage, Oxford, Oxford

University Press

R.Crompton and M.Mann (ed.), 1986, Gender and Stratification, Cambridge,

The Polity Press

146
 Systems of Kinship in India
Lineage and Descent in India

Lineage refers to a body of people who are arranged together on the basis of common blood
linkage, a special type of blood relationship that is bringing people together. In a patriarchal society father
and daughter are sharing blood relationship but still daughter is not part of fathers lineage group.
Anthropologists consider that descent or lineage refers to a special kind of blood relationship that unifies
people together. Lineage system can be divided into two parts in India i.e.

 Unilineal systems: a system of determining descent groups in which one belongs to one's father's or
mother's lineage. Both patrilineality and matrilineality are types of unilineal descent.
 Non-Unilineal systems: a system where there exists multiple forms of relationship.

Classical anthropologist divide descent groups into two fundamental types such as:

 Patrilineal : inheriting or determining descent through the male line.

 Matrilineal : inheriting or determining descent through the female line.

Lineage is considered as the heart and soul of Indian social life. Despite India's exposure to
technological and industrial modernity, descent plays a significant role in the life of people. GS Ghurye
writes in detail about various descent groups living together in different regions of the country carrying
different names and identities. These different lineage groups bringing together a multi-civilisation thereby
making India a land of pluralism. However ,all these descent groups imbibe common rules of marriage,
common food behaviour, common cultural, religious ideology radiating from Hinduism and that made Indian
society a land of diversity.

Indologists look into the role of descent in defining marriage, family and kinship in India. In
Northern India an individual is not allowed to marry in his father's group or mother's group, father's
brother’s group, mother's mother group, own group (in one's own village) driven by rules of extended
kinship.

Ghurye indicated that ‘Gotra’ , ‘Charna’ brings unity among people who are geographically
dispersed and these two groups are exogamous groups. Regional variation in kinship offering different
prescriptions for rules of marriage are discussed in detail why various sociologists who consider marriage in
case of India is not a matter of preference, rather it is driven by rules of descent and kinship.

Kinship or descent are foundation to caste is the argument forwarded by Gail Omvedt wherein she considers
that people belonging to similar descent group are located in a given region where they worship to their
common ancestors, follow common way of life and when the size of descent group expands, they migrate to
different areas but still carry their identity. Therefore caste is nothing but an expanded descent system
that maintains its boundary, distinguishing itself from the other caste.

Andre Beteille indicates association of man and kinship is so strong in India that voting
behaviour is driven by kinship rather than on the basis of merit. In all the political parties of India kinship
is the primary source of political recruitment. Thus democratic polity in India is engaged in social and
cultural reproduction.

Krishna Kumar points out that the influence of kinship on the life of man is so intensive that
“behind any corrupt man there is present an ambitious family”. He goes on to say that industrial
recruitment greatly takes place on the basis of kinship rather than on the basis of merit.

In case of India family/kinship offers ideological, economic, infrastructural support to individual

to determine the nature of occupation. In conclusion it can be said that the role of descent and kinship
not only determines the private sphere of an individual’s life like marriage, family, household, gender role,
rituals but also has great influence over his public life like occupational selection, political participation and
identity formation. Therefore the role of descent and kinship has changed very little under the influence of
modernity in India and so while studying social transformation one cannot afford to ignore the same.
 Types of kinship systems

Kinship is a relationship between any entity that share a genealogical origin (related to family,
lineage, history), through either biological, cultural, or historical descent. Various types of kinship are
studied by sociologists taking into consideration:

 kinship terminology;
 kinship behaviour;
 forms of marriage;
 patterns of residence.

All the considerations mentioned above ,vary in different parts of the country. The first
sociologist to study kinship systems in India is Irawati Karve ,she divided India into four different kinship
zones such as:

 North Indian kinship systems.

 South Indian kinship systems.
 Central Indian kinship systems.
 Eastern Indian kinship systems.

North Indian kinship systems

This kinship system is present in Hindi speaking belt and also in areas where Aryan culture
influence is substantive. It includes West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. In case of North India kinship system,
the terminology used for father's brother is not used for mother's brother ,therefore Patrikins are
distinguished from Matrikins. Within Patrilineal system father's brother are distinguished from father's
sister therefore differential terminologies are used. Father's brothers are also distinguished in terms of age
and so deferential respect is attribute to them.

In North India kinship systems, the rules of marriage is highly exhaustive because a large body
of people are excluded from alliance relationship. One is not supposed to receive a woman from a group to
which women is offered within 5 to 7 generations. In addition to that one cannot receive women from his
mother’s group or mother's mother group, father’s mother group and from within his own village. Hence
exogamy is quite exhaustive and marriage involves not intra-family ties but inter-village ties. Residential
system is very Virilocal (bride lives with husband's father’s group) type and marriage involves a series of
presentational obligations.

In North Indian kinship father – son relationship precedes over husband – wife relationship.
Elaborating on this Veena Das in an analysis of Punjabi kinship system indicates that natural sexual
relationship between husband and wife are subdued to social established relationship between father and son
thereby glorifying the values of patriarchy (system of kinship where authority rests with male).

South Indian kinship systems

This type of relationship system is largely present in all southern states and some of its
influence is also largely noticed in pockets of Maharashtra and Orissa. In southern India kinship systems, no
distinction is made between patrilineal or matrilineal ,therefore father's brother is equated with mother's
sister's husband and both their children being parallel cousins so no marriage is allowed between them. To
its contrast father's sister's group is equated with mother's brother's group, hence mother's brother is
equivalent to father's sister's husband. Thus in South India specific patrilineal kins are equated with specific
matrilineal Kins.

In South India father is equated with elder brother ,mother is equated with elder sister ,
daughter is equated with younger sister and son is equated with younger brother and
subsequently/correspondingly terminologies are adjusted. These terminologies speaks about love for younger,
respect for elders cutting across generational principles.

In case of South India cross cousins marriage take place and so exogamy is not exhaustive like
in North India. The relationship between husband and wife is not subdued to father – son relationship as in
case of North India. Hostility of relationship between the in laws driven by suspicion is also weak in South
India.

Central Indian kinship systems

This system is practised in case of Gujarat, Maharashtra, MP which is a mixture of elements

of North and South India. In case of Rajputs marriage is greatly determined on the basis of family status
of girl. Rajputs are permitted to marry any girl on the basis of their choice rather than simply follow the
rules of caste.

Marathas are divided into 32 clans which are are put into primary, secondary and tertiary
divisions and so the rules of marriage are determined accordingly between various divisions. In case of
“Kumbi” of Gujarat one is not supposed to marry women belonging to first-generation from father's side
and three generations from mother's side. In case of Rajasthan on the auspicious day of Akshaya Tritiya
massive marriages take place involving people belonging to different age groups and their rules of marriage is
sufficiently relaxed.
Eastern India kinship systems

It largely includes kinship patterns followed by different tribal groups like Munda of Orissa,
Manipuri of Manipur, Nagas, Kukis and Khasi. These kinship systems don't follow specific patterns e.g. in
case of Munda, people are divided into six different class associating themselves with lizard, teak, bamboo,
crocodiles etc and each class is divided into many lineage groups. A daughter carries the name of patrilineal
grandmother and son carries the name of patrilineal grandfather, divorce is common among them. In case of
Khasi youngest daughter inherits property from mother. The status of man in Khasi society is similar to
the status of women in North Indian kinship system.

In conclusion these regional variations in kinship largely speaks about differential residential
patterns, entitlement on the basis of gender, social status of men, women and children bringing the point
back home that Indian culture is largely pluralistic in character. Therefore unity in India should not be seen
as destruction of the process of diversity but rather it should respect the process of diversity.
 Family and marriage in India

The Study of family in India centres around the debate of joint family versus nuclear family.
The first authentic study on family comes from the writings of Sir Henry Maine, who was law adviser to
the colonial government of India. He developed intellectual interest in family studies and thus establish the
comparison between Indian joint family with Roman and Greek joint family. His understanding of family
depends upon textual material. He Indicated that joint family is characterised by:

 Common property holding.

 Absolute authority of ‘Karta’.

He considered that joint family is corporate unit where people make contribution differently
but share rewards on the basis of their needs. He said that joint family sustains in India because it is
considered as moral institution with the members are obliged to perform rituals for common dead
ancestors. This analysis is taking its foundation to Indological understanding of family wherein GS Ghurye
considered that joint family is a product of Indian culture that glorified classical values. There is universal
presence of joint family cutting across caste, religion which promoted unity among people in Indian society.

PN Prabhu in his analysis of family and kinship in India considers that individual’s association
with joint family is driven by moralism, therefore when moralism is replaced by individualism (when
tradition is replaced by modernity) then joint family is transformed into nuclear family.

Irawati Karve offered an exhaustive definition of joint family. She writes that joint family
refers to a social group where people belonging to 3 – 4 generations organically related to each other, hold
property in common, share common residence, eat food prepared in common kitchen, participate in common
rituals and ceremonies and they have, obligations towards the head of the family known as ‘Karta’. She
considers that joint family is a product of culture and therefore despite economic transformation joint
family system persists in India. It sustains itself as it is driven by cultural ideology rather than driven by
economic interest.

During 1960s two group of sociologist took considerable interest in the field of family study.
One group conforming to modern theory looked into complete integration of joint family system whereas
the other group went for empirical studies to examine regional variations in family transformation under
the various process of modernity. These two theories cannot be considered as qualitatively different because
there position stand vary only on the question of the degree of changes in family.

Yogendra Singh in his book "Modernisation Of Indian Tradition" writes that, how in case of
urban India, inter-caste marriages, love marriages, nuclear family is making appearance. He emphasises on
guilt free sexuality during pre-marital and post-marital life. He believes that industry, occupational mobility,
women empowerment has led to the rise of modern family and so it has contributed for a structural
breakdown of joint family system in India.

MN Srinivas, SC Dubay find out that there is a strong linkage between caste and joint family.
Empirical study indicate that higher castes go for joint family system and lower castes go for nuclear
family. Therefore joint family is driven by economic logic rather than cultural moralism. It is also noticed
that joint family is not breaking down completely under the influence of urban living.

Alan Rose in a study of Bangalore finds out that around 70% of families manifest either
structural jointness of functional jointness or a mixture of both. MS Gore in his study of Agarwals of Delhi
finds out that how mother – son relationship precedes over husband – wife relationship and family operates
as a strong support base to its members in matters related to selection of occupation, financial assistance
and selection of mates. TN Madan indicates how residential separation has not given way to break down of
joint family. In his theory of “money order economy” he indicates that family jointness has always been
enduring in case of India.

Thus these scholars concluded by saying that family transformation in India is not a replica of
family transformation in the West. Therefore social change in India is Indian in character and so Western
theories and models cannot explain family transformation in Indian society.
 Household dimensions of the Family

Family transformation in India has obtained a new theoretical explanation from the writings of
AM Shah and Pauline Kolenda. AM Shah puts a fundamental question that, whether in India joint household
is disintegrating or joint family is disintegrating. He finds out that proportion of joint household is more
today in comparison to past. He points out the reasons for the same i.e. due to rising population,
construction of house has become costly, migration in search of employment etc.

He points out that bigger joint households are now splitting into smaller households. People
living in different households have strong emotional ties therefore joint household is disintegrating but not
joint family and so family should be studied from household perspective and changes in household and family
patterns must be investigated to examine actual nature of family transformation in India.

Pauline Kolenda consider that family transformation in India is not a story of absolute
disappearance of joint family or joint household. Even in contemporary context joint family households are
still significant therefore the impact of modernity on family in India is not that conclusive as spelt out by
modernist and Marxist scholars.

Feminist sociologists are of the opinion that whether it’s joint family or nuclear family, in no
way family transformation is affecting to the status of women in India. Therefore reproduction, sexuality,
division of labour are all determined by the values of patriarchy than by principles of equality. The
patriarchal nature of family is instrumental for powerlessness of women, so family legitimises gender
inequality in Indian society since ancient times. Therefore glorification of family transformation is driven by
patriarchal social centric bias and one has two liberate oneself from this biasness to have an objective
understanding about family transformation in India.

Classical sociologists were greatly committed to family study either by considering family as
cornerstone of human society or by looking into changing nature of society. With the advent of modernity
it was perceived that household is a residential space but family is a social institution. However, with the
rise of feminism both as an ideology and as social movement, women's approach towards marriage has gone
through a series of transformation.

Rise of socialism in different parts of the world has contributed for decline of family. In
progressive Scandinavian countries the major traditional role of family like health, security, education,
employment are either extended to agencies of state or to the emergent modern institutions like marriage
bureaus, old-age homes, child care centres etc which have evolved into alternatives to family. Thus
sociologists look into disintegration of family taking place in a big way. Thus household as an important area
of study is gaining importance as against family.
 AM Shah in his book "household dimension of the family in India" indicate that even in
traditional context, household and family do not mean similar things. Citing the case of India he considers
that family and household were absolutely different but family studies in India immensely focused attention
on the transformation of joint family into nuclear family.

Household refers to residential space where people living together may or may not constitute
family. Looking at household pattern one could effectively study nature and form of transformation taking
place in Indian society.

In recent analysis of global migration and family pattern, it has been found out that in
countries like Philippines and India a large chunk of women in search of employment go out to advanced
countries of the world. Though most of them are married they don't stay with their family. As a result
they constitute independent household. These households may constitute many friends living together or a
person living with working partner to whom he/she is not married or a person living all alone.

It is generally perceived in case of India that household is less durable an alternative to family
system, which gives more importance to friendship than kinship. Household offer immense individual liberty,
sexual freedom, limited or no liability towards the other members of the household. It is suitable for the
fragile and mobile population. Therefore in a Scandinavian countries census gives more importance to
household than on family.

Thus it can be concluded that household is evolving into a replacement for family in many
developing countries including India. Therefore sociology of kinship is shifting its focus from the study of
marriage and family to the study of friendship and household.
 Patriarchy, Entitlements and Sexual Division of Labour

Entitlements have social, economic, political and cultural connotations. Conceptually speaking
entitlement can be considered as a form of individual right, is defined by culture or rules of law or by
society. In traditional societies right to work, education, social status, access to power, right over
reproduction, sexuality, children, rituals would driven by cultural prescriptions. But in modern society such
rights are supposed to be driven by civil laws pronounced by democracy. Modernity theory indicates that
various forms of entitlements are now extended to every section of society therefore inequality on the
basis of heredity, gender have gone into the state of oblivion.

The position of modernity theory is scrutinised and questioned by feminist sociologists. They
consider that, irrespective of civilisation, development, time people in every society has patriarchy
determined entitlements, therefore the difference between traditional and modern society is not so great
as it is being portrayed. For example modernity theory of Talcott Parson indicates that industrialisation,
urbanisation, migration have contributed for occupational mobility, empowerment of women and gender gap
within and outside family has sufficiently been reduced.

The modernist theory also indicates that in case of India relationship between husband and
wife is now proceeding over parent-child relationship. Conjugal relationship is considered as more important
than obligation towards kinship. Irrespective of gender every child inherits the property from parents,
selection of mates is no longer family’s responsibility and childbirth is greatly a matter of economics and
mutual agreement between spouse. Therefore modernity has broken down traditional form of marriage,
hierarchical form of relationship.

In case of Hinduism emphasis on sexual purity institutionalises child marriage. Sexual

experimentation outside marriage or premarital sex drives one in the direction of hell. Birth of male child
makes a women complete and divorce is considered as an act of evil. Widowhood brings in disaster to the
life of women therefore culture defines sexuality, reproduction, division of labour and gender rules in
different societies. Modernist theory contradicting to cultural theory indicates that with the glorification of
modernity, traditional form of marriage, family, gender discrimination will be wiped out and all over the
world nuclear family, possibility of divorce, childbirth by choice, individual control over his/her sexuality will
be getting momentum.

Thus, looking into family, marriage and sexuality one can look into the transformation
experienced by Indian society. From 1970s onwards revolution in the field of marriage and family study is
being experienced through the contribution of feminist scholars who point out that irrespective of time and
space there are present to opposite sex – man and women. The relationship between the two is dialectical
for the reason one enjoys power to make the other powerless. Human history progresses in terms of
technology, old political system is replaced by new political system but the dialectics of sex persist for all
times to come.

They indicate that what women is to nature men are to culture. Therefore this nature –
cultural dichotomy brinks man – women closer to their roles such as reproduction, child rearing,
domestication are the duties of women who operate within the household and family whereas man has
control over property, political domain, land etc.

This dialectics of sex is the foundation to evolution of law, emergence of cultural standards
that ultimately gives justification to great gender divide and differential access to entitlement. Indira Jai
Singh indicates how in case of India almost all the law explains entitlements on the basis of patriarchy than
on the basis of gender equality. She writes that Hindu marriage act gave right to a women to go for
divorce on the ground of adultery but adultery must be proved in the court of law.

There is a strong legislation against dowry but distinction between dowry and gift is still
unclear. MN Srinivas terms dowry as "modern day sati", a practice that leads to death of many young
women in India which cannot be forbidden through the enforcement of strong legal provisions.

The victims of rape are supposed to recast the same experience over and over again in order
to get justice. Only in the recent past women got their inheritance right over parents property which was
long due to them. Women have the right of maintenance over the child only as a custodian on the event
of death of husband and absence of other male members of the joint family. Therefore legal provisions in
India are products of patriarchy ,these laws theoretically extends different entitlements to women which
are difficult for them to access.

Tulsi Patel writes that women consider it as a sin to prohibit their husbands from sexuality
therefore most of the women go for unwanted pregnancy. Most of them lose their life during child birth,
their health crumbles but still ,they accept to patriarchal convention, forgetting their entitlements. In a
study to find out the difference between wage payment between men and women in Central India it was
found that women working in factories are paid less than half the amount for doing twice the work
compared to their male counterparts.

Therefore whether it is a question of sexuality, reproduction, welfare, employment, in every

sphere,value of patriarchy is glorified by the state or its agencies. These values mostly operate as guide to
gender role to bring down the conclusion that, family is a paradise in a hopeless world, marriage, childbirth
and motherhood makes woman’s life complete. Therefore feminist movement in case of India is not
manifesting a rebellion against patriarchy rather it is asking for gender equality.
 Tribal Communities in India
Definitional Problems

Academics have been making their efforts to define tribe. Tribes have been defined as a group
of indigenous people with shallow history, having common name, language and territory, tied by strong
kinship bonds, practising endogamy, having distinct customs, rituals and beliefs, simple social rank and
political organisation, common ownership of resources and technology. Such definitions are not very helpful
because when the situation of tribes is examined carefully not only do we find a lot of variations in their
life styles but also many of these features are shared by the caste people. This raises the problem as to
how to distinguish them from castes.

There have been other conceptual attempts to define tribes. They have been considered as a
stage in the social and cultural evolution. Some others have considered that the production and
consumption among the tribes are household based and unlike peasants they are not part of a wider
economic, political and social network. Bailey (1960) has suggested that the only solution to the problem
of definition of tribes in India is to conceive of a continuum of which at one end are tribes and at the
other are castes. The tribes have segmentary, egalitarian system and are not mutually inter-dependent, as
are castes in a system of organic solidarity. They have direct access to land and no intermediary is involved
between them and land.

Sinha (1965) too thinks of tribe and caste in terms of a continuum but his ideas are more
elaborate and he brings in the concept of civilisation. For him, the tribe is ideally defined in terms of its
isolation from the networks of social relations and cultural communications of the centres of civilisation. In
their isolation the tribal societies are sustained by relatively primitive subsistence technology such as shifting
cultivation and hunting and gathering, and maintain an egalitarian segmentary social system guided entirely
by non-literate ethnic tradition.

It has been suggested that wherever civilisations exist, tribes can be described, defined and
analysed only in contrast to that civilisation which it may fight, serve, mimic or adopt but cannot ignore.
In India, there are numerous examples of tribes transforming themselves into the larger entity of the caste
system; others have become Christian or Muslim. They also join the ranks of peasantry and in modem times
become wage-labourers in plantations, mining and other industries. Thus, in our concept of tribe we should
not overlook these changing aspects.
 While some tribal communities have adopted a mainstream way of life at one of the
spectrum, there are 75 Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) back in in 17 states and union deities of Andaman
and Nicobar Islands , who are characterised by:

 a pre-agricultural level of technology,

 a stagnant or declining population,
 extremely low literacy and
 a subsistence level of economy.
 Geographical spread

Indian tribes constitute roughly 8 percent of the nation's total population, nearly 68 million
people according to the 1991 census. One concentration lives in a belt along the Himalayas stretching
through Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh in the west, to Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland in the northeast. Another concentration lives
in the hilly areas of central India (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and, to a lesser extent, Andhra Pradesh); in
this belt, which is bounded by the Narmada River to the north and the Godavari River to the southeast,
tribal peoples occupy the slopes of the region's mountains. Other tribals, the Santals, live in Bihar and
West Bengal. There are smaller numbers of tribal people in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, in western
India in Gujarat and Rajasthan, and in the union territories of Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands.

The extent to which a state's population is tribal varies considerably. In the northeastern
states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland, upward of 90 percent of the population is
tribal. However, in the remaining northeast states of Assam, Manipur, Sikkim, and Tripura, tribal peoples
form between 20 and 30 percent of the population. The largest tribes are found in central India, although
the tribal population there accounts for only around 10 percent of the region's total population. Major
concentrations of tribal people live in Maharashtra, Orissa, and West Bengal. In the south, about 1 percent
of the populations of Kerala and Tamil Nadu are tribal, whereas about 6 percent in Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka are members of tribes.

Some of the tribes with their geographical location are mentioned below:

Santhals are the third largest tribe in India. They are mostly found in the states of West Bengal, Bihar,
Orissa, Jharkhand and Assam. They belong to the pre- Aryan period and have been the great fighters from
the time of Britishers.

Munda tribe mainly inhabit in the region of Jharkhand, although they are well spread in the states of West
Bengal, Chhatisgarh, Orissa and Bihar. Munda generally means headman of the village. Hunting is the main
occupation of the Mundas tribe

Khasi tribe is mainly found in the Khasi Jaintia hills in Meghalaya and in the states of Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Manipur, West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir. They forms the large part of the population in
the state of Meghalaya.

Angami tribe belongs to the extreme north eastern part of the country, in the state of Nagaland. The
total population of the Angamis is around 12 million. They are quite popular for their woodcraft and
artwork. Sekrenyi is the main festival celebrated among the Angamis in Nagaland.

Bhils are popularly known as the bow men of Rajasthan. They are the most widely distributed tribal groups
in India. They forms the largest tribe of the whole South Asia. Bhils are mainly divided into two main
groups the central or pure bills and eastern or Rajput Bhils.
Bhutia tribes are of the Tibetan origin. They migrated to Sikkim around 16th century. In the northern
part of the Sikkim they are known as the Lachenpas and Lachungpas. Bhutias forms 14% of the total
population of Sikkim.

Chenchu inhabit in the Nallamalai hills, which have been the part of the Nagarjuna Sagar Tiger Sanctuary
for centuries in Andhra Pradesh India. They are mainly found in the districts of Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda,
Praksham, Guntur, and Kurnool.

The Gonds are the tribal community mostly found in the Gond forests of the central India. They are one
of the largest tribal group in the world. Gonds have been largely influenced by the Hindus and for the long
time have been practicing the Hindus culture and traditions.

Great Andamanese is the negrito tribe inhabitant in the the Andaman group of Islands. They form the
largest population among the other tribes found in these islands. According to the census the population of
Great Andamanese is now limited to few individuals.
 Colonial policies and tribes and issues of integration and autonomy

AR Desai indicates that colonial tribal policy was a systematic form of economic exploitation
of the forest area and massive mineral deposit that were exploited through the use of tribal labour.
Contractors and money lenders were permitted by the colonial rule to exploit these resources located within
tribal pockets for economic gains. Any tribal protest was ruthlessly suppressed and many tribes in different
parts of the country who refused to cooperate with the colonial policies were labeled as criminal tribes e.g.
Mina Tribes. He considers that colonial tribal policy is largely responsible for de-tribalisation and de-
peasntisatio.

The tribes were labeled as criminals just for asking for justice and freedom. The criminal tribes
are not criminal because of the fact that they go for crime by force and not by choice. Their habitat is
altered, they are livelihood is taken away from them and their self-respect is undermined. Labeling them as
criminal tribes, the state got legitimacy to imprison and even kill innocent tribesmen to generate fear in
the mass mind for the accomplishment of their economic goals.

Mahatma Gandhi reflecting on the limitation of colonial tribal policy, indicated that rise of
Hindu militantntism is a reaction to the conversion policy accelerated by Christian missionaries in tribal
pockets under the patronage of British administration. Whereas another view considers that Christian
missionaries took tribals away from the world of darkness to the world of enlightenment, spreading
education, health care and glorified the unity among the tribes.

During 1871 Government Of India act was introduced which was further provided tooth by the
act of 1891. These acts laid down provision for the creation of ‘Partially Secluded Areas’ (tribal population
at least 50%) and ‘Fully Secluded Areas’ (tribal population more than 80%). Without official permission
outsiders were not allowed to enter into these areas, developmental activities in these areas can only be
initiated through the endorsement of state, the governor will be in charge of these areas. Therefore these
areas were converted into tribal islands completely controlled by the state. This colonial policy led to the
distinction between caste society and tribal society. The tribals in these areas realised caste as their prime
exploiters and identified them as “Dikus” (Dacoits).

Colonial rule permitted traders, forest contractors to commercially exploit the resources and
that subsequently led to the hostility between caste and tribe. Colonial tribal policy was extremely divisive
because it created a body of hostile militant tribal leader who considered caste groups as their perpetual
enemies. Tribe – caste divide has resulted into secessionist movement in different pockets of tribal India
which can be traced back to the faulty colonial policy.

After India's independence Jawahar Lal Nehru introduced Panchsheel policy for tribal development which
talked about:
  tribal development should take place respecting to their own genius.
 Tribal development should be evaluated not in terms of amount of money spent but in terms of
how many national characters have been developed.
 Tribals should not be kept in a state of isolation.
 Many developmental projects should not be introduced in tribal areas to accelerate the process of
development.
 Tribal development should take place on the basis of potential needs of the tribal people.

Veerrier Elwin suggested an isolation approach to tribal development. He indicated that

tribes must be kept away from their progressive counterparts because if they are exposed to market
economy and modern culture without adequate preparation, they would simply die out suffering from
cultural shock. This approach was termed as ‘Museumology’ approach by his critics. GS Ghurye rejecting this
approach indicated that tribal development does not mean we should go for national parks. He indicated
that social evolution should take place in phases i.e. first from tribe to caste and ultimately to class.
Therefore tribes must be exposed to caste, live in caste villages and take up caste occupation so that tribe
– caste differences can be minimised and both can enter into modern society eventually contributing to the
nation building process.

LP Vidyarthi was the chief architect of Tribal Development Programme in India. On the basis
of his suggestions multiple tribal development projects were introduced in India since fourth plan period. He
mooted the idea of developing Tribal Development Areas on the lines of Community Development Areas
where schools, hospitals, irrigation, vocational training centre, agriculture facilities should be extended to
the tribal communities. Abandoning their traditional mode of livelihood, tribes can participate in new
system of production and tribal economy can be linked up with the national economy efficiently. He further
suggested special rehabilitation schemes for tribal communities displaced by industrialisation and development
projects. Therefore these tribal groups instead of becoming victims of development must be benefiting from
development programmes. It will also lead to their integration with the larger economy and society. He also
said that tribes who are on the verge of extinction must be identified, segregated and taken care of by the
government and once their life is secured they can be trained to integrate with the larger society. He
concluded that the problem of integration of tribes with larger society can be effectively addressed through
a viable, people centric tribal development policy and its successful implementation.

However, unfortunately today, volumes are written by various sociologist indicating that how
the worst victims of development programmes have been the tribal people. During colonial period tribal
staged protest against taxation policy, right over land and political autonomy. After India's independence
tribals are reduced into submerged humanity. They have been the worst victims of land alienation,
deforestation, powerlessness and marginalisation ,therefore in contemporary times instead of integration
with larger society ,tribes are asking for political and economic space that they genuinely deserve but
systematically denied to them.

Due to these reasons tribal resentment is manifested in the form of protest in search of
statehood status (Bodo Movement) and at times cultural protection movement (Manipuri Movement),
sometimes protest against the excesses of the state (Narmada Bachao Andolan).

Thus it will be premature to conclude that tribes of India are effectively integrated with the
larger society, glorifying the intervention policy of the state in terms of reservation, creation of tribal
states. Tribes of India are confused, shattered, disillusioned and at the same time volatile and going for
protest and movement with different intensity in various parts of the country. This rebellion some may
consider as the manifestation of cultural myopia of the tribes but many consider such reaction as a tribal
search for the appropriate space in the social life which has been historically denied to them.
 Visions Of Social Change In India
Idea Of Development Planning And Mixed Economy

Planning is a blueprint of how social change should take place in society. Planning tells us the
area of priority and from where the resources to be utilized /mobilised. If these resources are being
received from International monetary fund and loans from other countries, how to pay them back is the
concern of planning. With some specific growth rate certain capital gets circulated through which the above
loans could be paid back.

India after independence went for structural change. Development planning was initiated in
India to cater to the socialist ideas of Nehru and developmental needs of the country. We lacked
technological advantage and market advantage and people were making their living from agriculture and
traditional handicrafts. Hence, we had no choice but to go for non-capitalist development planning.

In socialist development planning, state controls everything including instruments of growth

and production. State determines the way as to how trade and commerce must take place. Hence state
monopoly is executed everywhere. India evolved into a country after freedom struggle, in this struggle
people came from every strata society. Prior to this movement people had experience of excessive state-
controlled during the colonial period and state was capitalist oriented during that time. But again there
was a concern that if socialist model will be adopted then there are chances of complete autocratic rule of
state. Thus it can be said that socialist development planning was not the goal of the country but it was
rather, the only way out at that point of time.

Mixed economy

Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct
the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies. Most mixed
economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to having a
variety of government-sponsored aspects.

Under the mixed economy core areas are controlled by the state for example Coal, Railways,
shipping, petroleum etc. Certain areas were spelt out where private sector was restricted like defence,
electricity and government rule who was considered absolute in these fields. But there were some areas
where public and private sectors could work together or compete with each other.

Mixed economy in India has always given importance on agricultural growth as 80% of people
were making their living directly from agriculture. Development model that India chose after Independence
was greatly driven by Nehruvian ideology. Nehru believed that massive growth rate is a necessity for India
to address to the problems of hunger, unemployment and poverty.

Following the idea of Mahalanobis, he indicated a big plan approach for different sectors is
essential for economic growth in India. India started as a country dependent on food aid driven by principle
of “ship to mouth”. It was perceived that land reform system, rural cooperatives, green revolution, public
distribution system can bring revolution in agrarian sector. Likewise government control over industries was
considered essential for economic growth. Government gave direction to other industries dominated by
private entrepreneurs through industrial policies, specification of licensing provisions, sales tax and income
tax which were considered to be the need of the hour for inclusive growth.

Nehru believed that accelerated growth can bring economic surplus to the hands of the state
that can be used in infrastructure sector like health, communication and education. Sociologists look into
the impact of mixed economy and development planning in India addressing to the problems associated with
work culture, system of governance and other related factors.

MS Gore in his article "developmental policies in India since independence" indicates that land
reform system was introduced in the country in a haphazard manner which mostly supported the vested
interest of the big landlords.

Gandhian concept of cooperative farming lost its merit and "Benami" transfer gave legitimacy
to the private ownership rights over the land to the dominant class. As a result landless labourers
substantively started to speak about the failure of development programmes in India. Daniel Thorner calls
this as capitalist agriculture growth in socialist India.

Community Development Programme was aimed at improving economic growth through the
promotion of agriculture, horticulture and communication network. However the local dominant caste took
all the benefits who went for contractorship and pocketed all services and infrastructural support. By
bribing officials they consumed all the benefits of the program. As a result community development
programme led to family/personal development which led to its tragic failure.

The politicisation of the cooperative movements by the local affluent class resulted into its
dismal performance wherein rather than offering new skills and economic self-reliance to the people at the
grassroot level it benefited mostly the dominant and rich class. The seed cooperatives in Haryana, sugar
cooperatives in Maharashtra, irrigation cooperatives and Karnataka and finance cooperatives in Bengal all
benefited mostly people holding dominant positions who had power to bend all the rules by corrupting the
government officials and politicians alike.

Gandhi's vision of development planning was taken in a half-hearted manner as a result

development planning instead of promoting equality expanded class inequalities in India. During 1980s an
estimated 260 million people were poor and at the end of 2009, 270 million people fall in this category.
Thus one can easily guess that government led development programmes has not fulfilled its promise as it
was expected from it.

Most of the poor are scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes, destitute women or single
household were suffering from chronic poverty. Even after 62 years of India's independence chronic poverty
is evolving into major challenge to India's development programme speaking about comprehensive failure of
mixed economic development and strategy guided by socialistic ideology.

With regard to industrial sector more from the industries monopolised by the state
(defence, Railways, shipping, oil, steel, coal etc) registered massive loss by 1990s. Looking into the failure
of Indian industries it is said that socialist vision was a political compulsions soon after India's
independence, but during 1980s the conditions were so different that unless state and market came closer
to each other economic growth in India could not have been possible. Thereby employment generation and
eradication of poverty will nowhere be coming close to estimated target of five years plan. Rejecting to
this idea Marxist sociologist by comparing data on poverty rate in different states finds out that actual
poverty is much more high in comparison to estimated poverty.

They consider that actual poverty is not addressed to by the development programme in
India because it is emphasizing more on concessions, subsidy, intervention than building capabilities of people
therefore poverty sustains and perpetuates, though in official statistics it is spelt out that rate of
poverty is declining. This further indicate that industrial policies are aimed at controlling capitalist
monopoly.The government in charge of key areas of growth so that people can have basic access to
education, health care, food, housing etc but unfortunately this developmental approach has gave way to
the rise of state monopoly. Bureaucratisation of work culture, license raj opened doors for corruption
ultimately leading to tax evasion, expansion of parallel economy leading to industrial sickness, mass
employment and economic disaster.

Therefore India started with developmental program emphasising on mixed economy with
glorified socialistic vision but by 1985 it was realised that acceleration of poverty, unemployment,
illiteracy, gender gap in employment which led to collapse of both industry and agriculture. PC Joshi in his
book "developmental strategies for India" indicates that time has come when one should go for Gandhian
vision of planning that speaks about use of appropriate technology, trusteeship and balance between nature
and culture emphasising on human happiness than just materialistic prosperity.

Planning is not the brainchild of sociologist. Thus ignoring sociological wisdom government
preferred to go for privatisation and liberalisation during 1990s rather than going for sustainable
development growth. The damage done by mixed economic philosophy in 30 years will be much less than
what could result due to aggressive expansionist philosophy of economic liberalisation. Liberalisation has led
to openness of market, entry of caste Trans-nationals companies leading to elimination of small players for
market resulting in economic monopoly by industries in different sectors. These industries are driven by
profit centric orientation without any social responsibility, as a result India does registers growth but the
masses are suffering from joblessness, poverty and frustration.

Economic liberalisation has reduced India into a hunting ground of cheap labour as a result
exportation of labour is evolving into the new capitalist agenda. Anita Minocha finds out how young
software engineers in search of career advancement and materialistic benefits register multiple kind of
health hazards which is ruining their lives and it has reduced the younger generation into mindless
consumerist class and in the rural sector it has led to poverty. Reflecting on all these pathologies Amartya
Sen tells that India’s development policy has shifted from control by state to control by market whereas
but India should of done is to balance out between the two emphasising more on the areas of priority and
thereby promoting capacity building. Indicates that government should have started with two different
areas of development i.e. health and education. Health is both physical and mental capability of a person
to earn a livelihood and education gives him capacity to gather skills and challenge discrimination,
understand his rights and so he /she is able to demand justice when is not extended to him.
 Constitution, Law And Social Change

Making of modern India is a result of elite thinking. The preamble states that "we the
people of India solemnly resolve……………… ”. In this we the people only represent the 40 members of
Cabinet and not the entire population. All over the world when Constitution is formulated people debate
on it. Constitution was the brainchild of some intellectuals and elite present in the Cabinet.

In the West the blacks and women got citizenship rights after lots of protest,
mobilisation etc. But in case of India suddenly one day everybody is given citizenship rights with a whole
lot of fundamental rights without creating any awareness or mobilisation in the section before it was
introduced therefore citizenship guaranteed by the state is largely different from the citizenship practised
or used by the citizens.

All the concepts like equality, fraternity and liberty were borrowed from West which cannot
be effectively applied to Indian society because of ideological and cultural difference. Europe and America
went for Independent through collective participation, whereas in case of India princely states, zamindars
were happy with British rule because they were largely benefited by it. The only problem they faced was
increased taxation but they were willing to live with that, because they knew that after independence
they will lose their property rights. Hence in case of India it was not an inclusive action of the people.
Hence the ground which was the foundation for Freedom/Independent movement in West like equality,
liberty and fraternity were altogether new to India but still they were included in the introduction of the
Constitution without thinking about the capacity required to provide the same to the people in true
spirit.

The two most important/key areas of Indian Constitution are Directive Principles and
Fundamental Rights. Directive principles of State policy talks about what are the basic direction for a
state to go for social change. It is advisory in character i.e. looking into primarily resources available with
the state; the state will formulate plans for the people for example it talks about abolition of child
labour, protection of environment, living wages for workers, ending all forms of inequality etc.

State is trying to provide primary education to children since 1960s, but in a poor country
where hunger and survival are two major problems which leads to health concerns education becomes a
foregone conclusion. In India food security was major problem and state went for agricultural development
and introduced collective efforts. Till this day the government does not spend more than 2% on
educational sectors and it is struggling hard to catch up with the health issues because it's directly related
to nutrition and food which is again a big problem. Thus even after more than 60 years of independence
and by applying several trial and error methods to address the chronic problems, India has not been able to
live up to the most basic expectation required to sustain a dignified human life i.e. food, water and
shelter.
 Karl Marx said that "labour is the commodities sold in capitalist market". Child in case of
India is pie of the parents. Families are child bound but still we have not been able to provide even the
bare minimum to our children, who are going to be the future of tomorrow. In Kalahandi, Orissa mothers
are selling their child not for money but for the survival of child, as they are incapable to feed them due
to massive poverty which is leading to malnutrition, disease and death. Thus in case of India chronic
poverty persist and so child labour is difficult to abolish as it serves as an additional source of income for
the poor parents.

As far as secularism is concerned India comes in the category of unique nation. Can a state
go for secular credentials where people are driven by strong religious consciousness. Hence there is contest
between what state want people to be and what people culturally are. Andre Beteille said that people are
driven by the manuscripts than by Constitution. Constitutionally bonded labour has been abolished but as a
matter of fact we all know that it is practised in every part of India in one form or other.

Vijayalakshmi in a study of women housemaid in Delhi tells that most of them come from
Bihar and lack protection. The doors of their return are locked because land alienation has already taken
place. Their happiness lies with the members of the family where they're working. They can't demand
minimum wage and if they try to liberate themselves police cases are filed against them. Thus bonded
labour is abolished constitutionally but practically it is still persists.

Fundamental rights of Indian Constitution talks about adult franchise right emphasising on
meaningful political participation by the people. However different studies conducted by various sociologist
indicate that how Booth capturing, caste-based voting behaviour was the other name of democratic politics
in India. In addition to that, reflecting on Panchayati Raj system thee indicated that how people are
coerced to stay away from democratic participation on the grounds of gender, caste and ethnic identity.

Indian Constitution has spoken about the quality of political right .In the traditional Indian
society it is considered that political right is a matter of privilege for upper-class. Hence every general
election is transforming a political constancy into the battle front explaining the contest between the
constitutional provisions of the country and the hierarchical structure of society.

Right to freedom is a constitutional provision that is debated at length with Ramchandra

Guha, Upendra Bakshi who consider that freedom is yet to carry any meaning for tribal communities in
India. They have become the worst victims of highhandedness of the state due to land alienation. Living
within the democratic state most of the displaced tribal live at the mercy of powerful state and
constitutional guarantee of liberty and freedom is a fairytale for them.

Reflecting on Narmada Bachao Andolan Ramachandra Gowda indicated that how the
beneficiaries of the project coming from Gujarat received the patronage from state in a big way whereas
the displaced people mostly belonging to poor tribal communities had to wait four weeks together to have
a meeting with the head of the government. Therefore constitutional provisions of freedom is seriously
question by class identity, ethnic identity and economic status. Amartya Sen has rightly pointed out that
poverty makes an individual speechless, marginalised and therefore freedom as a constitutional provision is
not being really enjoyed or exercise by a large majority of people in Indian society.
 Education And Social Change

In view of the post-independence aspirations for modernization, change and

development it is but natural that several sociologists focus upon the issue of education as an
instrument for modernization, change and development. Together the several conceptual analyses
and empirical studies on this theme provide a valuable elucidation of the functions of education as an
instrument of development, the conditions under which this instrument is effective as the
conditions in which its functioning is constrained. They also provide valuable data and insights
on how, where and why education in the country has failed as an instrument of change. The
writings on the subject reveal a shift in the outlook on education across the years. In the beginning
the writings generally exuded faith in education as an instrument of development and focus on spelling
out the manner in which it is expected to function as such. In contrast, later writings
displayed a measure of skepticism about the effectiveness of education and generally inclined
towards indicating where and why it fails.

We find broadly two paradigms on the issue of education and society in India. They are the
functional paradigm and the conflict paradigm. In the functional paradigm education is considered as the
main instrument of social change and transformation. It is evident in the writings of educationists,
planners, policy-makers and most of the sociologists. Third Five Year Plan (1961) states that
Education is the most important single factor in achieving rapid economic development and technological
progress and in creating a social order founded on the values of freedom, social justice and
equal opportunity. Programmes of education lie at the base of the effort to forge the bonds
of common citizenship, to harness the energies of the people, and to develop the natural and
human resources of every part of the country.

Further, the report of Kothari Commission (1964) held that The destiny of India is
now being shaped in her classrooms. This, we believe, is no mere rhetoric. In a world based on
science and technology, it is education that determines the level of prosperity, welfare and security
of the people. On the quality and number of persons coming out of our schools and colleges
will depend our success in the great enterprise of natural reconstruction. The report adds, 'In
fact, what is needed is a revolution in education which in turn will set in motion the much
desired social, economic and cultural revolution'.

In the conflict paradigm, education is not considered as a prime mover of social

change or as the main weapon, or even one of the important instruments of achieving fundamental
social changes. Here, it is asserted that change is in or through the educational system is
not possible without prior changes in the social structure. The changes in economic structures, in the
political power structure, or the legal structure are the mainsprings of change in the social hierarchy
and the relationships between different sections in it. All these factors including education are
inter-related and interact, and it is difficult to separate out the effects and say that a particular
aspect of the change is attributable to education. Hence education seldom rises above the socio-
economic and socio-political situation in which it is embedded.

It has been argued that although formal education plays a vital role in
'ideational change' through transformation of the knowledge, attitudes and values of the people, its
effectiveness in bringing about structural change in society is extremely limited. The vicious circle in
which education is caught in India today may be broken if the linkages between the existing practices,
procedures and vested interests in the status quo are meaningfully exposed by social scientists
through their research.

Education is regarded as the key for restructuring the economies of the developing countries.
It helps in overcoming the techno-economic problems and also plays an important role in resolving the
socio-demographic problems.

Education facilitates the development of human resources, cultural expression, and

improved health and thus provides an essential base for social and economic development. It is
considered as an empowering phenomenon which enables the people to combat social justice and exploitation
and thus creates the required synergy for a structural socio-political transformation. According to
UNESCO, education leads to social revolution.

Education is regarded as an important instrument of social change. The role of education

could be viewed from two related but slightly different perspectives, which may be called teleological and
empirical perspectives. In the teleological perspective, the role of education is to assist the society to
achieve the goals it has set for itself.

These include:

i) Goals in the fields of technological, scientific, and other areas of economic development of the
country,

ii) Social goals like reduction of various forms of social inequality; and

iii) The goal of moulding the character of citizens as responsible and socially and politically conscientious
members of democratic society.

Education was regarded as an important means for reducing social inequalities in India. The
Constitution of India made special provisions for promoting the educational interests of the weaker sections
of society. Educational support was provided to SC / ST through the programmes of scholarships and
fellowships, and making reservations of seats for them in various educational institutions. It was presumed
that education would contribute to their overall development. Education could facilitate their economic
development as it enables them to get better paid jobs and achieve social mobility. Education also has
an emancipators' role. It promotes social awareness and sharpening of self-respect and dignity. However, it
is noted that education performs only a restricted role in the upward mobility of the weaker sections, and
at the same time enables the elites to maintain positions of power and authority.

The Indian Constitution provides equality of educational opportunity to all citizens. The
liberal democratic system permits competition and holds this as a legitimate strategy for the
betterment of one's status in society. Competitiveness is an important feature of the Indian
education system. There is a dialectical relationship between education and social mobility in general and
mobility to elite positions in particular. But it is only to a limited extent that education has facilitated
social mobility.

Problems with Education In India

There is noticed certain level of mismatch between education and development, particularly
rural development in India. It is opined that the education system is out of pace with the rhythm of life
in India. The primary schools are completely focused on preparing students to enter into the secondary
system of education. The secondary system has no concern with life around it and is fully meant to
prepare students to feed into the tertiary system whose goals seem to rest outside the India's
requirements. The products, particularly of the elite institutions prefer to leave the country and
work in the affluent foreign countries only for their individual benefits. A large number of
educated youth remain unemployable in the country. The poor people do not find education useful and
attractive as it does not ensure job, besides other factors.

Non-formal education, including adult education is seen to have large potential to

promote development and social change in a country like India. The classroom-centered education
and training is largely geared to producing urban based elites. It has created a serious problem of educated
unemployment and also high dropouts and illiteracy among the backward sections of society. The expert/
centered, literacy/skill focused non-formal education, including adult education has not been able to
adequately cater to the needs of the people.

The dialectical relationship is manifested in the processes of 'early selection' and 'mass
examination' in India. The process of early selection is involved in the enrolment of children when they are
very young in different types of educational institutions. Children from the elite background are 'selected'
early in life and placed in good quality, high fee, English medium 'public schools' where they are
prepared - in terms of skills, behaviour and values - specifically for elite status in their later life.

Children of the middle class study in medium quality quasi - public schools run by private
institutions, and in Central and Sainik Schools of the Government, and later generally work at middle level
occupational strata. Children of the lower class people get the opportunity to study in the ill-equipped low
quality regional medium government-run schools and are prepared to join the lower occupational strata in
the society. Similarly, the higher education institutions, both general and professional, are of high, medium
and low quality. Students of the elite public schools generally enter the selected few elite colleges. Those
from the medium and lower quality schools generally get admission to the medium and lower quality
colleges and institutions.

Various studies have shown that the major beneficiaries of higher education come from the
upper social strata and an urban background. Education had earlier facilitated the extension of dominant
peasant caste hegemony particularly at the state level. But with the passage of time, those belonging to
the lower castes, like SC/STs also made considerable progress in higher education and so has achieved the
attendant socio- economic benefits through limited mobility.

Besides literacy, education has to meet the need for skill development and employment
generation (not creating unemployment). It could develop their personal and collective critical thinking,
problem diagnosis and solution through organizing themselves in different ways. The programme would break
their isolation and marginalization, and motivate, organize and 'empower them to fully participate in social
and public / political activities in life. Here, the outside support would only facilitate the process and the
deprived people would themselves actively participate in their overall development in a sustainable way.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Social organisation of work in different types of society

Hunting and gathering societies

The members of hunting and gathering societies primarily survive by hunting animals, fishing,
and gathering plants. The vast majority of these societies existed in the past, with only a few
(perhaps a million people total) living today on the verge of extinction.

To survive, early human societies completely depended upon their immediate environment.
When the animals left the area, the plants died, or the rivers dried up, the society had to relocate
to an area where resources were plentiful. Consequently, hunting and gathering societies, which
were typically small, were quite mobile. In some cases, where resources in a locale were
extraordinarily plentiful, small villages might form. But most hunting and gathering societies
were nomadic, moving constantly in search of food and water.

The main form of food production in such societies is the daily collection of wild plants and the
hunting of wild animals. Hunter-gatherers move around constantly in search of food. As a result,
they do not build permanent villages or create a wide variety of artifacts and usually only form
small groups such as Bands and Tribes, however some Hunting and Gathering Societies in areas
with abundant resources (such as the Tlingit) lived in larger groups and formed complex
hierarchical social structures such as chiefdoms. The need for mobility also limits the size of
these societies. They generally consist of fewer than 60 people and rarely exceed 100. Statuses
within the tribe are relatively equal, and decisions are reached through general agreement. The
ties that bind the tribe are more complicated than those of the bands. Leadership is personal-
charismatic-and for special purposes only in tribal society; there are no political offices
containing real power, and a chief is merely a person of influence, a sort of adviser; therefore,
tribal consolidation for collective action are not governmental. The family forms the main social
unit, with most societal members being related by birth or by marriage. This type of organization
requires the family to carry out most social functions; including production and education.

Labor in hunting and gathering societies was divided equally among members. Because of the
mobile nature of the society, these societies stored little in the form of surplus goods. Therefore,
anyone who could hunt, fish, or gather fruits and vegetables did so. These societies probably also
had at least some division of labor based on gender. Males probably traveled long distances to
hunt and capture larger animals. Females hunted smaller animals, gathered plants, made clothing,
protected and raised children, and helped the males to protect the community from rival groups.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

Hunting and gathering societies were also tribal. Members shared an ancestral heritage and a
common set of traditions and rituals. They also sacrificed their individuality for the sake of the
larger tribal culture.

Pastoral societies

Members of pastoral societies, which first emerged 12,000 years ago, pasture animals for food
and transportation. Pastoral societies still exist today, primarily in the desert lands of North
Africa where horticulture and manufacturing are not possible.

Domesticating animals allows for a more manageable food supply than do hunting and gathering.
Hence, pastoral societies are able to produce a surplus of goods, which makes storing food for
future use a possibility. With storage comes the desire to develop settlements that permit the
society to remain in a single place for longer periods of time. And with stability comes the trade
of surplus goods between neighboring pastoral communities.

Pastoral societies allow certain of its members (those who are not domesticating animals) to
engage in nonsurvival activities. Traders, healers, spiritual leaders, craftspeople, and people with
other specialty professions appear.

Horticultural societies

Unlike pastoral societies that rely on domesticating animals, horticultural societiesrely on

cultivating fruits, vegetables, and plants. These societies first appeared in different parts of the
planet about the same time as pastoral societies. Like hunting and gathering societies,
horticultural societies had to be mobile. Depletion of the land's resources or dwindling water
supplies, for example, forced the people to leave. Horticultural societies occasionally produced a
surplus, which permitted storage as well as the emergence of other professions not related to the
survival of the society.

Agricultural societies

Agricultural societies use technological advances to cultivate crops (especially grains like
wheat, rice, corn, and barley) over a large area. Sociologists use the phrase Agricultural
Revolution to refer to the technological changes that occurred as long as 8,500 years ago that led
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

to cultivating crops and raising farm animals. Increases in food supplies then led to larger
populations than in earlier communities. This meant a greater surplus, which resulted in towns
that became centers of trade supporting various rulers, educators, craftspeople, merchants, and
religious leaders who did not have to worry about locating nourishment.

Greater degrees of social stratification appeared in agricultural societies. For example, women
previously had higher social status because they shared labor more equally with men. In hunting
and gathering societies, women even gathered more food than men. But as food stores improved
and women took on lesser roles in providing food for the family, they became more subordinate
to men.

As villages and towns expanded into neighboring areas, conflicts with other communities
inevitably occurred. Farmers provided warriors with food in exchange for protection against
invasion by enemies. A system of rulers with high social status also appeared.
This nobility organized warriors to protect the society from invasion. In this way, the nobility
managed to extract goods from the “lesser” persons of society.

Feudal societies

From the 9th to 15th centuries, feudalism was a form of society based on ownership of land.
Unlike today's farmers, vassals under feudalism were bound to cultivating their lord's land. In
exchange for military protection, the lords exploited the peasants into providing food, crops,
crafts, homage, and other services to the owner of the land. The caste system of feudalism was
often multigenerational; the families of peasants may have cultivated their lord's land for
generations.
Between the 14th and 16th centuries, a new economic system emerged that began to replace
feudalism. Capitalism is marked by open competition in a free market, in which the means of
production are privately owned. Europe's exploration of the Americas served as one impetus for
the development of capitalism. The introduction of foreign metals, silks, and spices stimulated
great commercial activity in Europe.

Industrial societies

Industrial societies are based on using machines (particularly fuel-driven ones) to produce
goods. Sociologists refer to the period during the 18th century when the production of goods in
mechanized factories began as the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution appeared
first in Britain, and then quickly spread to the rest of the world.
CRACKEXAMINDIA.COM

As productivity increased, means of transportation improved to better facilitate the transfer of

products from place to place. Great wealth was attained by the few who owned factories, and the
“masses” found jobs working in the factories.

Industrialization brought about changes in almost every aspect of society. As factories became
the center of work, “home cottages” as the usual workplace became less prevalent, as did the
family's role in providing vocational training and education. Public education via schools and
eventually the mass media became the norm. People's life expectancy increased as their health
improved. Political institutions changed into modern models of governance. Cultural diversity
increased, as did social mobility. Large cities emerged as places to find jobs in factories. Social
power moved into the hands of business elites and governmental officials, leading to struggles
between industrialists and workers. Labor unions and welfare organizations formed in response
to these disputes and concerns over workers' welfare, including children who toiled in factories.
Rapid changes in industrial technology also continued, especially the production of larger
machines and faster means of transportation. The Industrial Revolution also saw to the
development of bureaucratic forms of organization, complete with written rules, job
descriptions, impersonal positions, and hierarchical methods of management.
 UNIT 20 FO AL AND INFORMAL

, .
Structure \ . , .

20.0, Objectives. ,
20.1 Introduction .
20.2 : Organisation: Meaning and Definition
20.3 Formal Organisation . . .
20.4 Characteristics,of Formal Organisation
20.5 Functions of Formal Organisation
. , I .

. 20.6 Informal Organisatioh I

20.7 Why Informal Organisation?
20.8 Characteristics of Informal Orgahisation I t

20.9 Dysfunctions o'fInforrna1 Or~anisation . .

20.. i0 Interdependence of Formal and Informal Organisation

20.11 Let Us Sum U p
. 20.12 Key Words
,
20.13 Some Useful Books ,

20,14 Answers'to Check Your Progress Exercises

. , . . . .
~ f ' t e f ~ have
o u read thii,bnit,. you
, . should beable.tp; ,,
.,

.
comprehend the m'eaning of organisation
'0 \ t
idenfify types of organisation, their functions and ch'aracteristics
i distinguish between formal and informal organjsation, and
* explain relations between the,formal and informal organisations,
..

'2Q.1 INTRODUCTION ,

Ofganisation is the framework. It facilitates proper utilisation of rnen;mat~rial and

money for the achievement of the goals. You will come across organisations in the;
pursuit of every day activities. The post office, the municipality, the bank, the officeof ,
the agricultural extension officer, the panchayat officje, the railway station, etc., are. .
' examples of gfganisations Which serve the community. When certain goals have to be-
achieved and when individuals have to come together and share the work and act with.
' understanding over a pefiod of time, an organisation is formpd. In this unit, we will
, examine the natureand importance of organisation, formal and informal organisations
and their characteristics and the relationships betweep the two types of organisations
for effective delivery of services.
' - z .

+ ' .

T@eeailiest form of organisation was the.family and over the period of time other fd&s
of organisatidns also came up. The industrial revolution ushered in the era o'f,mass
production of goods., Machines replicecl men and factories became centres of
production ushering in an era of big organisations. ' b
I 1 5
1,
I I
Concepts in Orgnnisation-I The term organisation is viewed differently by different authors depending upon the
emphasis the author would like to lay upon. When you read a few definitions you will
come to know the significance attached by different authors. Morstein Marx defines
organisation as structure developed for carrying out the tasks entrusted to the chief
executive and his administrative subordinates in the government. The emphasis in this
definition is on structure. J.D. Mooney on the other hand, defines organisation as the
form of human association for the attainment of common purpose. The family, the
mahila mandals, the youth welfare associations, etc., can be cited as examples. In this
particular definition, the author lays stress upon the cooperative endeavour of human
beings. According to L.D. White, organisation is the arrangement of personnel for
facilitating the accomplishment of some concrete purpose through the allocation of
functions and responsibilities. The working of a public transport system can b e cited as
an example. The maintenance staff are entrusted with the responsibility of t h e upkeep
of the vehicles. The movement of vehiclesis the sole responsibility of the running crew
and the support servlces are provided by the auxjliary staff consisting of the clerical;
stores, personnel, finance, etc. It would be evident that different units are assigned
specific responsibilities and are held accountable for the purpose of specific task.
Gladden defines organisation as the pattern of relationship between persons in an
enterprise s o arranged as to fulfil the enterprise's function. The functioning of an
organisation depends upon the formulation of policy, preparation of plans in accordance
with the policy and their implementation. In an organisation the top management is
responsible for policy formulation, the middle management for programming atid
planning and the rank and file for implementation. The principle of hierarchy ensures
that the rank and file is accountable to middle management and middle
m&hgement is accountable t o the top management. Thus the superior subordinate
relationship mad; possible through hierarchy ensures the tasks are assigned and
responsibilities are fixed for different levels that facilitates the smooth achievement of
goals.
It would be clear from these definitions that organisation consists of structure, working
arrangement between the people who work in the organisation dnd the relationships
between them. In today's world one's life is inextricably interwoven with organisations
whether it be governmental, church, army, scPTool, club, public or private. It is in fact
very difficult to think o f organisations without persons and vice versa. Peopl'e in fact
work in organisations, derive benefits from organisation and are influenced by them.
Some times, the organisations may even produce frustrations and oppression.
We have noticed that organisations have been in existence from time immemorial. T h e
nature of organisation has'undergone modifications and with the passage of time, we
find that there are different types of organisations. Based o n the number of people
working in an organisation, they are classified as small or big. A school, with a single
teacher, can be cited as an example of a small organisation. On the other'hand, the
Indian Railways which employs over twenty lakhs of personnel is a good example of a
large organisation. Base'd upon the nature of relationship, organisations are also
categorised as simple o r complex. The family, where the nature of relationship is direct
and the activities are few is good example of a simple organisation. On the o*er hand,
the defence ministry, which is responsible for safeguarding the sovereign interest of the
nation, renders a wide spectrum of services traversing land, sea and air csveripg
different sectors both public and private is a good example of a complex organisation.
Organisations are also classified as formal and informal based upon the significance
attached to the structure or the human side of the enterprise.
For a proper understanding of working of the organisation, it is imperative t o
understand the characteristics and the functions of formal and informal organisations.

20.3 FORMAL ORGANISATION

O n e of the areas in the field of organisation t h e o v that has engaged the attention of
scholars is the role of formal and informal organisations. Formal organisation is o n e
which is deliberately planned and designed and duly sanctioned by the competent
authority. I t is the organisatiob as shown on the organisation chart or as described by.
manuals and rules. It is an organisation as it appears to the observers from outside. I t
is customary foiany organisation to prepare a chart forming the structure, T h e
foIlowing chart would serve as an illustration.
 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE Formal and Informal Orga~lisntions
1
Minister
4
'

Secretary '
4
Joint Secretary
4
Deputy Secretary
4
AssistantIUnder Secretary
4
Section OfficerlSuperintendent
4
Senior Assistants
4
Junior Assistants
U

According to Chester Barnard formal organisation is a system of consciously

coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons. Barnard explains that
individuals agree to work in an organisation because they are prepared to contribute
their services and receive in return certain benefits. The working of the postal
departmertt can be given as a good example. The delivery of mail depends upon certain
intei-related activities like sorting of the letters, distribution of mail to the concerned
postmen and delivery at the door step of the individuals concerned. Louis Allen defines
formal organisation as "a system of well defined jobs, each bearing a definite measure
of authority, responsibility and accountability, the whole consciously designed to
enable the people of the enterprise to work most effectively together in accomplishing
their objectives". i

Thus formal organisation enables designing of an organisation, idefitification of various

levels for decision-making, all~cationof duties and responsibilities and ensuring
smooth performance. -+ a
.

26.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMAL ORGANISATION

Formal organisation is the frame through which organised effort is directed for
achieving the goals. It has certain distinct charact~kistics.They are:
0 Legal Status
Division of work
Primacy of structure
Permanence
0 Rules and Regulations

A study of these characteristics would enable you to understand the nature of formal
organisations.
.
Legal Status
A distinctive feature of formal organisation is that it is bpcked by legal Sanctions. The
establishment of any organisation at the government level requires the enactment by
padiament o r legslature: The Incometax Department owes its existence to the Income
Tax Act. The Municipal ~orporationsof Bombay, Delhi or Hyderabad have come into
existence on the basis of legislation enacted by the respective state legislatures. P~nblic
sector organisations like Life Insurance Coiporation, Food Corporation, etc., were
established on the basis of enactments by the union parliament.
The law which enables the organis tian to come into existence also confers authority.
2
The personnel Wyrking in the vari us departments in the discharge of their official work
are backed by the authority of law, For instance,, various enforcement agencies
which regulate the activities of either individuals or organisations do so only through
the exercise of authority vested in them: Legal status, is an important feature of formal 7
~rganisation.
I
iur il
 Concepts in organisation-I Division of work
Sivision of work, which is the very basis for organisation to come'into existence', is
I
I
!
made possible through formal organisation. Formal organisation which indicates the
, levels of management, the designation of officers and their area of operation makes it
very convenient for: the division of work. This enables, as we would see in a later unit,
the,organisation t o specialise in certain tasks or activities and realise the goals
effectively. For example, the managing direytor of an organisation is r7sponsible for the l
achievement of the overall objectives of the organisation. However, ~twould be I

impossible for him to accomplish the task without dividing the work amongst his
colleagues. When there is division of work, there is also specialisation because each unit-
concentfates on the specific task and the officials acquire expertise.
I
Primacy of Structure
In formal organisation, the'emphasis is laid on the design and structure. As Unvick has
noted that "absence of structure is illogikal, cl4uel,wasteful and inefficient". The
structure is clearly defined and the roles of individuals working in organisations is
clearly spelled out. The structure also describes the communication flows and the
relationships between members.'

Perrhanence
Forrrial organisations @rerelatively permanent than others. Though they adopt t o
environmental conditions and change the structure and even objectives, they are
generally created to last a long time. The formal organisations not only last long, but
they also grow over time. >
1
' '
, Rules and .kegulations
,
Another important feature of a formal orga"isation is that it functions in accordance
I with well-formulated rule's a n d regulations. Officials working in formal organisations
cannot act as per their likes and dislikes but should function within the framework of t h e
stipulated rules and reg,ulations. For instance, if the hank has 'to sanction a loan to an a

, l
entrepreneur, the rules and regulations regarding the sanction of the loan should be
followed and the entrepreneur has to fulfil every dondltion laid down. The officer
incharge of sanctioning loans strictly follows these rules and regulations. Rules and
regulations limit thediscretion of the officials who exercise authbrity and ensure
$
objectivity.

2 0 3 FUNCTIONS OF FDRMAL ORGANXSATION -

. a
Formal organisation undertakes several functions. In the first place, it facilitates
. : determinationof gbals and objettives in the absence of which it would be&difficultto
I , direct skills o'f men and women to accomplish the stated goals. For inktance, the
I! . gbje~tiveof the postal depar'tment is to ensure speedy and efficient delivery of mail t o
the citizens. The objective of the defence ministry is to prbtect the sovereignity and
integrity of the country against any form of external aggression.
I .

Formal oiganisation spells' out the nature and scope of the activities of different units
within fhe oiganis~tion.In the case of the defence ministry ,"thearmy, navy and air force .
6 ,
r are assigned sprtific roles to guard the land, sea and air. . L .

Formal organisation also facilitates the fulfilment of another importai;t function,

1 $ . . I
I . namely, coordination. For ihstance, the sub-inspector of a police station coordinates a

,. the:activities of several &ad constables. The circle inspectors coordinate the activities
of several police stations each under the control o f a sub-inspector. Every higher level -
&
I
I .
functionary coordinates theactivities of the officers imwediately below him. I

7
~ c c o r d i tno~Allen, fdrrnal organisation sets up boundaries, sign and pathways
- 1
which must be:followed. It provides basic structure through which government o r any . ' ,
I
other enterprise functions..The dis!inctive feature of formal organisation is the J

! impersonal relationship. Impersonal relation contributes to objectivity and

dispassionate examination of isshes involved so that the decisions can b e taken on-the . :
k 8 ', meritspf the case. For example; in a cour$'bf law, judgements are delivered on the basis
.I 1 .'
' ,
1
I
. I
. . 1 ,
of evidence presented before the judge rathern than on an) other extraneous rrtal and l~~formal
Orfi,?nis~tir*r~s
consideration. In financial matters, an auditor who is exanlining the Elnancisl
traneactions should beguided by theafinancial rules, receipts iind vouchers iirmd
documentary evidences.

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i) Use tile space below for your answers.
ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the u11it.

1 What is an organisation?

2 Define a formal organisation

3 .Explain the characteristics of a formal organisation.

4 Describe the functions of a formal organisation.

 20.6 INFORMAL ORGANISATION
To obtain a total picture of any organisation, we must :ilso consider the i~iformal
structure. This is found in those aspects of structure which, while not prescribed by
formal authority, supplement or modify the formal structure. As in case of formal
organisation, Chester Barnard also highlights the significance of informal o~anisation.
According to him, informal organisation is the aggregate of personal contacts and
interactions and the associated grouping of people. Informal organisation is also *
defined as the pattern of actual behaviour of people working in an organisation. While
the forma1organisation emphasises on the structure, informal organisation emphasises
on personality and human emotions. The superior-subordinate relations between .
important officers niay be influenced by the commanding personality or the powerful
connections of the subordinates.
Most of the administrators are fully aware of the inevitability of the informal structure.
Adnlinistrators at all levels normally associate themselves with one or more informal
groups "buddies" from inside or outside the organisations. Presidents and Prime
Ministers have kitchen cabinets to aid and assist them. Members of this group may be
more influential than the more visible and formally established cabinets and their
committees. In any organisation, in addition to the formal channelsof ctsmmunication,
the .executivesalso rely upon informal communication lines. The 'grapevine' provides
very important information to the administrators about what the official actually feels
about the tasks and responsibilities and vice-versa.
Thus informal organisations are often viewed as shadow organisations and as silhouette
of formal organisations. They are ill-defined and difficult ta determine. They do not
have definite organisational goals. The relations between members, therefore, are not
specific. Spontaneous, unofficial and unstructured relations lead to favourable
sentiments which'in turn increase the interactions and strengthen the bonds of
identification. Because of informal nature, absence of goals and unstructured
relationships, the formal system of controls do nqt operate in informal organisations.

20i7 WHY INFORMAL ORGANISATION?

We have discussed in Block 2 that the individuals have needs and requirements which
they wish to satisfy. The formal organisatians do not satisfy all the needs of individual
members. Therefore, the members try to seek'satisfaction of their needs through other
sources. This results in the formation of informal organisations.
--
Hicks and Gullett identified several factors that cause the emergence of informal
organisations. We will now discuss some of these factors. Firstly, the individuals join a n
informal organisation to satisfy their social needs. As we have discussed in u n i t 13 :
individuals desire affiliation, relationships and desire companionship. If these needs ."
are not satisfied, he feels isolated~andgets dissatisfied. Similarly we have seen in Unit
10 hodMay0 explained that individuals when working in groups derive greaer
satisfaction. Thus, informal organisation comes into existence to fulfil social needs of
individuals.
Secondly, as Ch.ester Barnard has noted, individual derives personal comfort in soiial
relations whiclr is called solidarity, social integration or social security. Through social
contact, individual satisfies a need for identification and belonging. Infornlal
organisations provide greater opportunities for the individuals to prove their
capabilities which the formal organisations cannot provide.
Thirdly, every individual expeiiences tensions and frustrations in the drganiFations
while performing their jobs. T o overcome this, they seek compassion and
understanding. These are provided by the informal organisations. They serve as
'ielease vhlves' and in them indi\;iclua.ls find sympathetic friends who had similar..
experience. '

Fourthly, informal organisations enable the inember6to get assistance in meetifig their ,
organisational objectives. As a student gets assistance of his fellow students, members
of organisations get the assistance and guidance from.their colleagues and co-workers
t o fulfil their organisational objectives. - .. . . .
.I

+
,.
 Fifthly, informal organisations provide opportunities \O individuals to release thc:ir Fap ntnl nnd bndirrsral orrani.-ntii fa*

creative talents. Spontaneity is encouraged and even protected by the informal

organisations.
Sixthly, every organisation has certain values, preservation of which is dearer to the,
group. These values have to be developed and perpetuated.'~na formal system this is
not possible as the values of the individual may not be in consonance with the values of
the organisation. But informal organisation provides such opportunities.
Finally, members of an organisation always want to know what is going on ir! thcil
organisations. 'The formal channels of communicatiori are always slow, sometimes the
information is poorly transmitted and even blocked. The informal organisations
develop systems or channels of communicationwhich travel very fast. This has the
advantage of enabling the members of the organisation to know about the forthcoming
events and adjust themselves to the reqtriTiements.

--

, ORGANISATION -
Informal organisationhas several unique characteristics. Firstly, in these organisations,
members think and act alike. Their continuous association leads to shared values. Any
violation of these shared values results in group pressure and even ostracism. Thus,
infomal organisations, standards of behaviour are enforced.
Secondly, informal organisation brings pressure on the members to conform to the
standards of behaviour accepted by the group. Since members of the group desire
satisfaction from their association, they tend to conform to the group pressures. As we
have noted earlier any deviation from the accepted standards of behaviour results in
punishment and even ostracism. 7-'

Finally, in informal organisations, one finds a different style of leadership. In formal

systems, members follow the leader because of their formal position or exercise of
authority. But in informal organisations members follow the leader because of his
influence. As Mary Parker Follett has noted that leaders emerge out of situatit?xlsand
they lead as long as situation warrants. But in informal organisation, leader must live
up to the expectations of the group. If he fails he is thrown out which is nor possible in
formal systems.

20.9 DYSFUNCTIONS OF INFORMAL B RGAN~FC

Informal organisation no doubt, helps the formal organisation in many ways. It
contributes the missing elements to tbe members of the formal organisations. But it has
a few problems and dysfunctions as well.
We have seen earlier that the inforyal organisation provides much faster modes of
communications. This is no doubt a more constructive role. This communication
system, which is often called grape vine, is vulnerable for spreading inaccurate,
incomplete and distorted information. Spreading of such rumours creates confusion
and consequently several prqblems to the organisation.
Second!y, we have seen that informal orgqnisations come into exir;fenceto ierpetuatc
., certain values, which in other words may mean perpetuation of status quo. It is
,-.
generally believed that formal organisation always reslsts change. In the guise of custom
and convention in formal org'anisation quitk often measures which are in the interest of
the organisation are resisted. Thirdly insistence of confirmity to group standards has
also its own dysfunctionalities. Quite often, this may lead to pressure on the individuals
to restrict their productivity. Taylor called this 'systematic solde~jng,;T~is
drslunctionality is not in 'the hterest of the organisations.
Concepts in Organisatinn-P
20,410 INTERDEPENDEN.GEOF'FORNBALAND
INFORMAL ORGANISATION
For a'proper understanding of the working of organisations, a thorough knowledge of
formal and informal organisations, their inter-relationships and the supportive roles
need to be properly understood and appreciated. Formal organisation and informal
organisation are two opposite sides of the same coin. A society is structured by formal
organisations and they are vitalised and conditioned by informal organisation. What is
asserted is that there cannot be one without the other. No organisation can be fully
understood b y the study of its formal structure only. A meaningful insight into the
personalities of its key men and the roles they play are equally necessary to understand
the dynamics of a working organisation. Management in future must be able to
understand the goals and aspirations of individuals, group dynamics, informal aoles,
etc. Theinformal communication or the grapevine provides important leads to the chief
executive in any organisation which may enable him to take appropriate decision as the
situation warrants. Any result-oriented administrative system should be able to achieve
-a proper blend of both formal and informal aspects of organisation so as to perform
effectively. I

heck Your Progr6ss 2

. *

~ t e :i) Use the space below for your answers.

ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the unit.
1 What is an informal organisation?

....................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
......................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
2 Why Informal organisations are created?
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
....................................................................................................

3 What are the characteristics of an informal organisation.?

...:,........................................... .: ...................................................
. . . . . . . .r ......................................................... ................................
 .....................................................................................................
,
....... :C Formal und Infaripal Orparisations

....................................................................................................
4'What are the dysfunctions of an informal organisation?.

......................................................................................................
5 How do formal and informal organisations supplement each other?
...............I . . . . ............................................................................
....

.
20.111 LET US SUM UP
organisations come into existence to undertake certain functions to reqlise cerkain
objectives. P q . ,. , wll*il or big, simple or complex or formal and informal. Formal
organisafions ale clkacterised by legal status, primacy of structure, division of work,
permanence and rules and regulations. 'They facilitate determination of goals, nature
of activities and ensure coordinatidn. Informal organisations, on the other hand, satisfy
social needs of its members, act as a 'release valve' and provide opportunity for the
release of creative talents. In Informal organisations there is identity of views and type
of leadership which is different from formal organisations.

20.12 KEY WORDS

Auxiliary: Additional
Cuordination: Bringing about cooperation and terrm work among employees of an
organisation by rcmoving conflicts and overlappirig from administration.
 Extraqeous: External
Grapevine : B ~ i d formal
e communication channels, every organisation has an infbri~lai
commur~icationchatlnel which is referred to as grapevine.
Ostracism: To exclude or banish from a particular group or society. I
I
I
&lease valve: Outlet
I

Sibomlette: The outline of a solid figure as cast by its shadow. 1

I
I

-- 8

I
USEFUL BOOKS
20.13 ~ O M E
Avasthi A. 62 Maheshwaki, 1985 Public Administration; Lakshmi Narain Agarwal:
Agra:
Barnard Chester, I., 1954. The Functions of the Executive; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge.
Brech, E.F., 1957. Organisation: The Framework of Management; Longman Green &
Co. Lid. : London.
Gladden, An Pns"rodurtionto Public Administration; London Staples Press: London
Herbeyt G. Hicks & C. Ray Gullett, 1975. Organisations: Theory and Behaviour;
McGrawHill International Book Nouse: New Delhi.
John Id. Peffner and Frank M.Sherwood, 1968. Administrative Organisation;
Prentice-Wall of India : New Delhi
~ e i t ~h a v i s1981.
; Numan Bohaviourat Work: Organisation Behaviour; Tata McGraw
Hill Publishing Company: New Delhi.
Louis A. Allen, 1958.Management and Organisation;McGraw Hill Kogaku@J.,td.:
Eondon.
Sharrna M. P., 1983. Public Administration Theory and Practice (14th edition); Kitab
Mahal: Delhi.

--
20,14 ANSWERS TO ~ H E C KYOUR PROGRESS
- EXERCISES
Check Y ~ u Progress
r I
1 See Sec. 20.2
2 See Sec. 20.3
3 See Sec. 20,4
4 see Sec. 20.5

Check Your &ogress 2

1 See Sec.'20.6
2 .See Sec. 20.7
3 See Sec. 20.8
4 See Sec. 20.9
5 Sce Sic. 20.10
 Division of Labour –
UNIT 20 DIVISION OF LABOUR — Durkheim and Marx
DURKHEIM AND MARX
Structure
20.0 Objectives
20.1 Introduction
20.2 Socio-Economic Setting and Meaning of ‘Division of Labour’
20.2.0 Socio-economic Setting
20.2.1 Meaning of Division of Labour
20.3 Durkheim’s Views on Division of Labour
20.3.0 Functions of Division of Labour
20.3.1 Causes of Division of Labour
20.3.2 Abnormal Forms of Division of Labour
20.4 Marx’s Views on Division of Labour
20.4.0 Social Division of Labour and Division of Labour in
Manufacture
20.4.1 Implications of Division of Labour in Manufacture
20.4.2 Marx’s Remedy - Revolution and Change
20.5 A Comparison
20.5.0 Causes of Division of Labour
20.5.1 Consequences of Division of Labour
20.5.2 Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of Labour
20.5.3 Durkheim’s ‘Functional Model’ of Society and Marx’s
‘Conflict Model’
20.6 Let Us Sum Up
20.7 Key Words
20.8 Further Reading
20.9 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

20.0 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you should be able to:
z describe Emile Durkheim’s views on division of labour as expressed
in his work The Division of Labour in Society
z outline Karl Marx’s views on division of labour
z compare the distinct views of Durkheim and Marx on division of
labour.

20.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, you are going to study the similarities and differences in the
manner in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx treated the process of
“division of labour”. 37
Max Weber To begin with, we will briefly describe the socio-economic setting in which
Durkheim and Marx expressed their views. We will then explain the concept
of division of labour. This will be the first section (20.2).
In the second section (20.3) we will study the views of Emile Durkheim
on division of labour which he put across in his Ph.D. thesis entitled The
Division of Labour in Society (1893).
We will go on to study Karl Marx’s analysis of the topic in the third section
(20.4).
Finally in the fourth section (20.5), we will compare and contrast the
positions of these founding fathers.

20.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING AND

MEANING OF DIVISION OF LABOUR
In the following sub-sections we shall first describe the socio-economic
setting in which Durkheim and Marx worked. This will help us understand
their views better. We shall then see exactly what is meant by the term
‘division of labour’. What does it involve? Why is it practised? These are
some of the points we will tackle in this section.

20.2.0 Socio-Economic Setting

Durkheim and Marx lived in an age in which Europe was experiencing
the ‘Industrial Revolution’. As we have studied earlier in this course, the
Industrial Revolution was characterised by a shift in the technique of
production. Small-scale, domestic production of commodities gave way to
large-scale mass production in factories.
Change took place not just in the economic sphere. Cities and their
populations grew and so did the incidence of poverty, crime and other
social problems. Social stability and order were under threat. The traditional,
feudal society was crumbling and the modern, industrial world was coming
into being.
The social context in which Durkheim and Marx lived was such that they
had to evolve or work out explanations for what they saw in the society
around them. We shall see the very distinct manner in which they
approached the process of division of labour. This was a process, which
was becoming conspicuous with the advance of industrialisation.
Let us now understand what division of labour means.

20.2.1 Meaning of Division of Labour

By the phrase of ‘division of labour’ we mean the splitting up of an activity
into a number of parts or smaller processes. These smaller processes are
undertaken by different persons or groups of persons, thereby speeding up
the performance of the activity. Let us take an example. You want to make
a shirt. It will take you quite some time to do the entire job yourself. If,
however, some friends decide to join you, the job can be simplified. One
person may do the cutting, another may do the machine-stitching, a third
38
may do the finishing stitches by hand. This will save you a great deal of Division of Labour –
time and energy. You and your friends can probably make many more Durkheim and Marx
shirts in the same time it would take you alone to make a single shirt. You
have divided labour and hence saved time and increased productivity.
Division of labour implies specialisation, (i.e., each person becoming an
expert in his or her task) saving time and saving costs and at the same time
increasing productivity.
The concept of division of labour was systematically discussed by the
Scottish economist Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith
felt that the division of labour was the primary source of economic progress.
It was the vehicle through which economic development would advance.
You may read more about Adam Smith in Box 20.1.

Box 20.1 Adam Smith

Adam Smith is regarded as one of the pioneers of modern economics.
He was born in 1723 in Kirkcaldy, a small town near Edinburgh,
Scotland. After his early schooling in Kirkcaldy, Adam Smith went on
to the University of Edinburgh where he was awarded an M.A. in 1740.
He then went to Oxford. In 1751, Smith was appointed a professor of
moral philosophy in the University of Glasgow. During his tenure,
which lasted until 1763, Smith produced his first book, The Theory of
Moral Sentiments (1759).
Smith began work on his, magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations after a
two-year stay in Europe. There, he met a number of philosophers,
notably the great Frenchman Voltaire, all of whom exerted a profound
impact on him. The Wealth of Nations was published in March 1776.
In this book, he tried to study the history, causes and limitations of
economic “progress” or development. Adam Smith saw the basic source
of development in the individual’s desire to improve economic status.
Smith identified division of labour as the process which helped accelerate
economic development. Smith used an impressive collection of
economic data, which he gathered from his wide readings and sharp
observations. Some of this data is referred to by economists even today.
The Wealth of Nations remains one of the most important works in
social science because it was one of the first attempts to study
comprehensively the competitive, individualistic world of industrial
capitalism. This book also contained an evaluation and sharp criticism
of existing society and government. Smith strongly opposed
government intervention in economic matters. In his opinion, human
beings should be free to pursue their economic goals. This would lead
not just to personal gains, but the benefit of society as a whole.
After the publication of this book, Smith settled in Edinburgh. He
died on July 17th, 1790. He is remembered as one of the important
figures in the history of economic thought.

We have so far discussed the meaning of the term in an economic sense

Division of labour has a social side as well. It is the social aspect of this
phenomenon that Emile Durkheim examines in The Division of Labour in
Society. Let us now describe the main points made in this work. 39
Max Weber Check Your Progress 1
i) Fill up the blanks in the following sentences.
a) The Industrial Revolution marked a change
from…………………………. production of commodities to
……………………..production in factories.
b) ……………………….. was becoming more conspicuous with the
advance of industrialisation.
c) …………………………… said that division of labour was the
primary source of economic development
ii) State whether the following statements are true (T) or false (F)
a) Division of labour leads to wastage to time. (T/F)
b) Durkheim wanted to study the economic aspect of division
of labour T/F
c) Division of labour leads to specialisation T/F

20.3 DURKHEEVTS VIEWS ON DIVISION OF

LABOUR
Durkheim’s major concern as a sociologist as we have already seen in
Unit 18 of this Block is the theme of social order and integration. What
holds society together? What keeps it in an integrated whole? Let us first
see what Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, Durkheim’s predecessors
had to say about it.
Auguste Comte suggests that it is social and moral consensus that holds
society together. Common ideas, values, norms and mores bind individuals
and society together.
Herbert Spencer puts across a different view. According to Spencer, it is
an interplay of individual interests that holds society together. It serves the
selfish interests of individuals to strive for integration. Thus social life is
possible.
Durkheim was at variance with these views. If, as Comte suggests, it is
moral consensus that holds society together, then would not modern
industrial society crumble? After all, modern society is characterised by
heterogeneity, mobility, and diversity in activities and values. It is a society
where individualism is valued. Spencer’s suggestion that selfish interests
hold society together was also found to be faulty by Durkheim. If indeed,
individual interests hold sway, the resulting competition and antagonism
would break the backbone of society. Each would struggle for his own
profit even at the expense of the other. Conflict and tension would bring
about social disintegration.
The question that arises is, is individualism the natural enemy of social
integration and solidarity? Would the Industrial Revolution lead to nothing
40 but the destruction of social bonds? Durkheim thinks otherwise.
According to him, the basis or focus of social integration differs in pre- Division of Labour –
industrial and post-industrial societies. He demonstrates how the process Durkheim and Marx
of occupational specialisation or division of labour helps to integrate
societies where heterogeneity, differentiation and complexity are to be
found. These societies, as you have already studied in Block 3 are those
based on organic solidarity. In the following sub-sections we will see how
Durkheim studies division of labour in terms of
1) the function of division of labour
2) the causes underlying division of labour
3) deviations from the normal type of division of labour, i.e. abnormal
forms.

20.3.0 Functions of Division of Labour

As you have already studied, Durkheim classifies human societies into
i) those based on ‘mechanical solidarity’ and
ii) those based on ‘organic solidarity’.
i) Mechanical Solidarity
As you know, mechanical solidarity refers to a solidarity of
resemblance or likeness. There exists a great deal of homogeneity and
tightly-knit social bonds which serve to make the individual members
one with their society. The collective conscience is extremely strong.
By collective conscience we mean the system of beliefs and sentiments
held in common by members of a society which defines what their
mutual relations ought to be. The strength of the collective conscience
integrates such societies, binding together individual members through
strong beliefs and values. Violation of or deviation from these values
is viewed very seriously. Harsh or repressive punishment is given to
offenders. Once again, it must be pointed out that this is a solidarity
or unity of likeness and homogeneity. Individual differences are
extremely limited and division of labour is at a relatively simple level.
Briefly, in such societies, individual conscience is merged with the
collective conscience.
ii) Organic Solidarity
By organic solidarity, Durkheim means a solidarity based on difference
and complementarity of differences. Take factory, for example. There
is a great deal of difference in the work, social status, income, etc. of
a worker and a manager. Yet, the two complement each other. Being a
manager is meaningless without the cooperation of workers and
workers need to be organised by managers. Thus they are vital for
each other’s survival.
Societies based on organic solidarity are touched and transformed by the
growth of industrialisation. Thus, division of labour is a very important
aspect of such societies. A society based on organic solidarity is thus one
where heterogeneity, differentiation and variety exist. The growing
complexity of societies reflects in personality types, relationships and
41
Max Weber problems. In such societies, the strength of the collective conscience lessens,
as individual conscience becomes more and more distinct, more easily
distinguished from the collective conscience. Individualism becomes
increasingly valued. The kind of grip that social norms have on individuals
in mechanical solidarity loosens. Individual autonomy and personal freedom
become as important in organic solidarity as social solidarity and integration
in societies characterised by mechanical solidarity.
Does this mean that modern society has nothing to integrate it? Division
of labour, says Durkheim, is the process that will help keep society
integrated. How? Well, as we have already seen, division of labour implies
working together at certain tasks, in other words, it implies cooperation.
As work becomes more and more divided, two consequences can be seen.
On the one hand, each individual becomes specialised in his field. He can
exercise his initiative and creativity in his special field. On the other hand,
each individual grows to depend more intimately on society. Cooperation
and complementarity are the watchwords of such a society. The kind of
solidarity produced, namely organic solidarity, is of a higher order than
mechanical solidarity. It allows individuals to exercise their freedom and
initiative even while binding them to each other and to society. Thus, the
process, which helps the growth of both, individualism and social
integration, is division of labour. At this point it is an good idea to complete
Activity 1 in order to appreciate the concept of division of labour. We
would then look at Durkheim’s answer to the question posed above.

Activity 1
How is labour divided in the household? Write a note of about two
pages covering the following points (i) nature and allocation of tasks,
(ii) the extent to which division of labour helps or hinders smooth
functioning of the household.
Let us now examine in this case the causes of division of labour as
described by Durkheim.

20.3.1 Causes of Division of Labour

What leads to the process, of division of labour or, what are the causal
factors? Durkheim provides a sociological answer to this question.
According to him, division of labour arises as a result of increased material
and moral density in society. By material density Durkheim means the sheer
increase in the number of individuals in a society, in other words,
population growth. By moral density he means the increased interaction
that results between individuals as a consequence of growth in numbers.
The growth in material and moral density results in a struggle for existence.
If, as in societies characterised by mechanical solidarity, individuals tend
to be very similar, doing the same things, they would also struggle or
compete for the same resources and rewards. Growth of population and
shrinking of natural resources would make competition more bitter. But
division of labour ensures that individuals specialise in different fields and
areas. Thus they can coexist and, in fact complement each other. But does
this ideal state of affairs always prevail? Let us see what Durkheim says.
42
20.3.2 Abnormal Forms of Division of Labour Division of Labour –
Durkheim and Marx
If division of labour helped societies achieve integration and a newer, higher
form of solidarity, why was European society of that time in such a chaotic
state? Was division of labour creating problems? What had gone wrong?
According to Durkheim, the kind of division of labour that was taking
place was not the ‘normal’-type that he wrote about. Abnormal types or
deviations from the normal were being observed in society. Briefly, these
included
1) Anomie
This term means a state of normlessness. Material life changes rapidly,
but rules norms and values do not keep pace with it. There seems to
be a total breakdown of rules and norms. In the work sphere, this
reflects in conflicts between labour and management, degrading and
meaningless work and growing class conflict.
To put it simply, individuals are working and producing but fail to see
any meaning in what they are doing. For instance, in a factory
assembly-line workers have to spend the whole day doing boring,
routine activities like fixing screws or nails to a piece of machinery.
They fail to see any meaning in what they do. They are not made to
feel that they are doing anything useful, they are not made to feel an
important part of society. Norms and rules governing work in a factory
have not changed to the extent that they can make the worker’s activities
more meaningful or show the workers that society needs and values
them.
2) Inequality
Division of labour based on inequality of opportunity, according to
Durkheim, fails to produce long-lasting solidarity. Such an abnormal
form results in individuals becoming frustrated and unhappy with their
society. Thus tensions, rivalries and antagonism result. One may cite
the Indian caste system as an example of division of labour based on
inequality. People have to do certain kinds of work not because of
their capacity but because of their birth. This can be very frustrating
to those who want to do more satisfying or rewarding jobs, but cannot
have access to proper opportunities.
3) Inadequate organisation
In this abnormal form the very purpose of division of labour is
destroyed. Work is not well organised and coordinated. Workers are
often engaged in doing meaningless tasks. There is no unity of action.
Thus solidarity breaks down and disorder results. You may have
observed that in many offices, a lot of people are sitting around idly
doing little or nothing. Many are unaware of their responsibilities.
Collective action becomes difficult when most people are not very
sure of what they have to do. Division of labour is supposed to increase
productivity and integration. In the example discussed above, the
opposite takes place (see Giddens 1978: 21-33).
43
Max Weber So far in this unit, we have seen how Durkheim views division of labour
not just as an economic process but a social one. Its primary role, according
to him, is to help modern industrial societies become integrated. It would
perform the same function for organic solidarity that the collective
conscience performed in mechanical solidarity. Division of labour arises
as a result of the competition for survival brought about by growing material
and moral density. Specialisation offers a way whereby various individuals
may coexist and cooperate. But in the European society of the time, division
of labour seemed to be producing entirely different and negative results.
Social order seemed to be under serious threat.
Durkheim however describes this as deviations from the normal type. He
terms these as (1) anomie, wherein new rules and norms governing division
of labour do not arise, (2) inequality, which results in discontent, tension
and conflict and (3) inadequate organisation, which makes division of
labour meaningless, producing disunity and disintegration.
Let us now move on to the next section and study the views of Karl Marx
on division of labour. But before that, do check your progress.
Check Your Progress 2
i) State whether the following statements are true or false
a) Auguste Comte explained social integration in terms of individual
interests. T/F
b) Durkheim agreed that moral concensus was what held modern
industrial society together. T/F
c) According to Durkheim, individualism and social integration were
natural enemies. T/F
d) The collective conscience becomes stronger in organic solidarity
according to Durkheim. T/F
ii) Answer the following in about five sentences each.
a) Why is organic solidarity of a higher order than mechanical
solidarity, according to Durkheim?
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
b) How do material and moral density lead to division of labour?
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
44
 ......................................................................................................... Division of Labour –
Durkheim and Marx
.........................................................................................................
c) What did Durkheim mean by “anomie”?
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

20.4 MARX’S VIEWS ON DIVISION OF

LABOUR
In the following sub-sections we shall try to understand
i) the distinction made by Marx between social division of labour and
division of labour in industry or manufacture.
ii) the implications of division of labour in manufacture.
iii) Marx’s remedy to the problems created by division ofJabour, namely,
revolution and change.

20.4.0 Social Division of Labour and Division of Labour

in Manufacture
Let us first try to understand what Marx means by division of labour. In
this analysis of the topic in the first chapter of ‘Capital’, Volume 1, Marx
pin-points two types of division of labour, namely, social division of labour
and division of labour in manufacture.
1) Social division of labour: This exists in all societies. It is a process
that is bound to exist in order that members of a society may
successfully undertake the tasks that are necessary to maintain social
and economic life. It is a complex system of dividing all the useful
forms of labour in a society. For instance, some individuals produce
food, some produce handicrafts, weapons and so on. Social division
of labour promotes the process of exchange of goods between groups,
e.g., the earthenware pots produced by a potter may be exchanged for
a farmer’s rice or a weaver’s cloth (see Figure 20.1: Social Division
of Labour). Such exchanges spur on or provide an impetus to
specialisation.

Figure 20.1 Social Division of Labour

45
Max Weber 2) Division of labour in industry or manufacture: This is a process,
which is prevalent in industrial societies where capitalism and the
factory system exist. In this process, manufacture of a commodity is
broken into a number of processes. Each worker is limited to
performing or engaging in a small process like work in an assembly
line (see Figure 20.2: Division of Labour in Manufacture). This is
usually boring, monotonous and repetitive work. The purpose of this
division of labour is simple; it is to increase productivity. The greater
the productivity the greater the surplus value generated. It is generation
of surplus value that motivates capitalists to organise manufacture in a
manner that maximises output and minimises costs. It is division of
labour, which makes mass production of goods possible in modern,
industrial societies. Unlike social division of labour where independent
producers create products and exchange them with other independent
producers, division of labour in manufacture completely divorces the
worker from his product. Let us examine this point in more detail by
trying to understand the implications of division of labour in
manufacture.

Figure 20.2 Division of Labour in Manufacture

20.4.1 Implications of Division of Labour in Manufacture

1) Profits accrue to the capitalist
As earlier described, division of labour in manufacture help to generate
more and more surplus value leading to capital accumulation. Marx
tackles a crucial question, namely, who takes away the profits? Not
the workers, says Marx, but the capitalists. Not those who actually
produce, but those who own the means of production. According to
him, division of labour and the existence of private property together
consolidate the power of the capitalist. Since the capitalist owns the
means of production, the production process is designed and operated
in such a way that the capitalist benefits the most from it.
46
2) Workers lose control over what they produce Division of Labour –
Durkheim and Marx
According to Marx with division of labour in manufacture workers
tend to lose their status as the real creators of goods. Rather, they
become mere links in a production chain designed and operated by
the capitalists. Workers are separated from the products of their labour;
in fact, they hardly ever see the end result of their work. They have
no control over its sale and purchase. For example, does a worker in
an assembly line in a factory producing washing-machines really get
to see the finished product? He/she might see it in an advertisement or
at a shop window. The worker will not be able to sell it or afford to
buy it, having been merely a small part of the production of that
machine. The actual control over it is exercised by the capitalist. The
worker as an independent producer no longer exists. The worker has
become enslaved by the production process.
3) Dehumanisation of the Working Class
The capitalist system characterised by division of labour is one where
workers stop being independent producers of goods. They become
suppliers of labour-power, which is needed for production. The
worker’s individual personality needs and desires mean nothing to the
capitalist. It is only the worker’s labour-power which is sold to the
capitalist in exchange for wages that concerns the capitalist. The
working class is thus stripped of its humanness and labour-power
becomes a mere commodity purchased by the capitalist, in Marx’s view.
4) Alienation
One of the important concepts developed by Marx in understanding
the realities of the industrial world is that of alienation. You have already
studied this in Block 2.
The process of production and division of labour is one which forces the
worker to do boring, tedious, repetitive work. The worker is robbed of all
control over his/her work. The worker becomes alienated from the products
he/she is creating, from the production process he/she is a part of, from
fellow workers and from society at large (see Kolakowski, 1978: 281-287).

Activity 2
Observe the process of division of labour in a factory or a cottage
industry. Jot down your findings in about two pages and compare them,
if possible with the other students at your Study Centre.

20.4.2 Marx’s Remedy - Revolution and Change

Can the problems of loss of control, dehumanisation and alienation be
countered? For Marx it is the abolition of private property, and the
establishment of a classless society is the way out. Are labourers forced to
be enslaved by the production process? Is division of labour forever to be
imposed on them, restricting their creativity and control over their work?
Marx holds that social division of labour has to exist in order that the
material conditions of human life may be met. But it is division of labour 47
Max Weber in production that has to be reorganised. It is only when private property
is abolished through the revolution of the proletariat that the workers can
gain freedom from the alienative division of labour that has been thrust
upon them.
The establishment of a communist society according to Marx will enable
workers to own and control the means of production. The reorganised
production process will enable each individual to realise his/her potential
and exercise creativity. Marx and Engels describe their vision in the
following words:
“In communist society where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity
but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society
regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do
one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the
afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a
mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”
(German Ideology, Vol. I, Sect. IAI).
In the above discussion, we saw how Marx distinguished between social
division of labour and division of labour in manufacture. Social division
of labour is essential for the basis of material life in all societies. Division
of labour in manufacture, however, comes into existence with the
development of industrialisation and capitalism.
The existence of division of labour in manufacture has the following
implications, namely,
1) Profits accrue to the capitalist.
2) Workers lose control over what they produce.
3) Dehumanisation of the working class takes place.
4) Alienation takes place at all levels.
In order to handle these problems, Marx preaches the ‘revolution of the
proletariat’, which will do away with private property and transfer the
ownership of the means of production in the hands of the workers. This
will result in the production process being designed and operated by the
workers themselves, enabling workers to give scope to their creativity, and
excell at a variety of tasks. They will not be forced into a boring exploitative
routine.
Check Your Progress 3
i) Answer the following questions in three lines each.
a) What did Marx mean by “social division of labour?”
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

48
 b) “Workers lose control over their products as a result of division Division of Labour –
of labour in manufacture.” Explain this statement. Durkheim and Marx

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
ii) Tick the correct alternative.
a) According to Marx, the working class becomes dehumanised
because
i) machines are introduced in factories.
ii) the working class is regarded only as a supplier of “labour
power”.
iii) workers cannot buy the goods they produce.
b) Workers become alienated from production because
i) they are engaged in monotonous work.
ii) they do not share the profits and have no control over their
production.
iii) they sell their labour-power for wages.
c) The communist revolution would result in
i) complete abolition of division of labour.
ii) no change in division of labour in manufacture.
iii) a production process designed and operated by the workers
themselves.

20.5 A COMPARISON
We have separately studied the views of Durkheim and Marx on division
of labour. Let us now compare their views. To make this comparison easier,
we shall compare their views on division of labour under the following
headings viz.
i) Causes of division of labour
ii) Consequences of division of labour
iii) Solutions to the problems related to division of labour
iv) Durkheim’s ‘Functional’ model of society and Marx’s ‘Conflict’ model.

20.5.0 Causes of Division of Labour

Both, Durkheim and Marx make a very clear distinction between division
of labour in simple societies and complex industrial societies. Division of
labour is an inevitable and necessary aspect of the socio-economic life of
49
Max Weber any society. But they are more concerned and interested in the division of
labour that takes place in industrial societies.
Durkheim explains division of labour in industrial societies as a consequence
of increased material and moral density. As we have studied earlier, he
looks at specialisation or division of labour as a means through which
competition or the struggle for existence can be eased. Specialisation is
what makes it possible for large numbers of people to live and work together
without fighting, because each has a distinct part to play in society. It makes
team-work and coexistence possible.
Marx too considers division of labour in manufacture a feature of industrial
society. But unlike Durkheim, he does not see it as a means of cooperation
and coexistence. Rather, he views it as a process forced upon workers in
order that the capitalist might extract profit. He sees it as a process closely
linked with the existence of private property. The means of production are
concentrated in the hands of the capitalist. Therefore, the capitalist has to
design a production process that will result in maximum profit. Hence,
division of labour is imposed on workers. They sell their labour-power to
the capitalist for wages. They are reduced to doing monotonous, boring
and unimaginative activities so that productivity increases and the capitalist’s
profits increase.
Briefly, Durkheim says the causes of division of labour lie in the fact that
individuals need to cooperate and do a variety of tasks in order that industrial
society may survive. According to Marx, division of labour is imposed on
workers so that the capitalists may benefit. Durkheim stresses cooperation,
whilst Marx stresses exploitation and conflict.

20.5.1 Consequences of Division of Labour

Following from their differing views on the causes of division of labour in
modern industrial societies, Durkheim’s and Marx’s perceptions on the
consequences of division of labour too are bound to be different. Durkheim,
as earlier mentioned, sees division of labour as a process that would help
individuals coexist and cooperate. We have already studied how he views
division of labour as being a force of social integration promoting organic
solidarity. In a “normal” situation, division of labour contributes to social
integration by giving each individual a specialised activity to perform. Each
can develop his/her powers of creativity and innovation in his or her
specialised task. At the same time, each would depend more and more on
others doing complementary activities. Thus social bonds would become
more firm, more enduring.
Anomic division of labour based on inequality and inadequate organisation
are pathological or abnormal forms, according to Durkheim. They are not
caused by division of labour as such. They are the result of society being
in a state of flux. Norms, rules and regulations governing new economic
relations have not yet come into being. The economic sphere is changing
rapidly, but new norms regulating it have not yet emerged properly.
Marx on the other hand sees division of labour as a process imposed on
workers by capitalists. Its consequences, as we have already studied, are
that it leads to dehumanisation of the work force. Alienation results. Workers
50
are reduced to things. Their creativity, their control over their creation is Division of Labour –
taken away. Their labour becomes a commodity that can be bought and Durkheim and Marx
sold at the market place. Thus they become mere parts of the production
process rather than the producers themselves. Their personalities, their
problems mean nothing to their employers. They are regarded as nothing
more than work-machines. Thus they are literally dehumanised. Being part
of a system they cannot control, they suffer from alienation at all levels;
from their work, their fellow-workers and the social system itself.
Briefly, Durkheim sees division of labour as a process that can be the
basis of integration. Marx sees it as a process bringing about
dehumanisation and alienation, separating the creators from their creation.
The workers become slaves of the system of which they should have been
the masters.

20.5.2 Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of

Labour
As we have seen earlier, Durkheim sees division of labour as a process,
which under normal circumstances will bring about social integration. The
pathological or abnormal forms of division of labour that prevail in society
have to be solved in order that division of labour might perform its
integrative functions.
Anomie according to Durkheim can be handled by making workers
conscious of their role in society. By making them feel organically linked
and involved with the life of society, the frustration of doing “meaningless”
work can be eased. Meaninglessness will then be changed into an awareness
of the significance of their productive roles.
According to Marx, capitalism itself is the problem. Division of labour
brings about dehumanisation, alienation and loss of control. The way out
is through revolution, through which workers gain control over the means
of production. They will then organise and operate the production process
in such a manner that dehumanisation and alienation will become things
of the past.

20.5.3 Durkheim’s ‘Functional Model’ of Society and

Marx’s ‘Conflict Model’
Durkheim’s study of division of labour brings out his functional model of
society. Social institutions and processes are viewed by him in terms of
the contributions they make to keeping a society alive. You have studied
this in Unit 18 of this Block. Durkheim tries to give an explanation to the
question of order. Remember, he lived at a time when social order seemed
to be under threat. His task therefore was to demonstrate that the changes
that were taking place would not destroy society but contribute to integrating
the new society that was emerging. Durkheim does not merely look at the
economic aspect of division of labour but rather its social aspect, its
contribution to social integration.
Marx responds quite differently to the challenges thrown up by
industrialisation. He does not share Durkheim’s view that society is basically
in a state of equilibrium and that social institutions and processes exist
51
Max Weber only because they help to integrate society. Marx views human history as
a history of class struggle, or a series of struggles between the oppressors
and the oppressed. Capitalism is a phase in human history marked by the
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The system of
production that exists under capitalism is designed to exploit the workers.
The interests of the workers conflict with those of the capitalists. The
revolution of the proletariat, Marx believes, will overthrow the old system
and bring in the new. Contradictions, conflict and change are the key-
words in Marx’s understanding of society.
Briefly, Durkheim sees society as a system held together by the integrative
contributions of its various institutions. Marx sees history as a series of
struggles between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. This leads to conflict and
change. This is the main difference in their approaches.
Check Your Progress 4
i) Arrange the serial numbers of the following statements under the
appropriate headings:
DURKHEIM’S VIEWS MARX’S VIEWS
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
.......................................................... ...............................................
a) Division of labour is exploitative.
b) Division of labour leads to cooperation.
c) Division of labour is conducive to social integration.
d) Division of labour strips the worker of all control.
e) Division of labour is a feature of the modern capitalist world.
f) The problems of the industrial world are abnormal forms.
g) The problem of the industrial world is capitalism itself.
h) Division of labour based on inequality will create problems in
society.
52
ii) Distinguish between Durkheim’s functionalism and Marx conflict model Division of Labour –
in their treatment of the topic ‘division of labour’. Answer in eight Durkheim and Marx
lines.
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

20.6 LET US SUM UP

We first studied the meaning of the term “division of labour”. We then
studied the views of Emile Durkheim on division of labour. These views
were put across in his work Division of Labour in Society. The main points
expressed in this book were organised under the following headings
1) Functions of division of labour
2) Causes of division of labour
3) Abnormal forms.
We then dealt with the views of Karl Marx on division of labour. We saw
the difference he made between social division of labour and division of
labour in manufacture. We studied the implications of division of labour in
manufacture, namely, how
1) profits accrue to the capitalist.
2) workers lose control over what they produce.
3) dehumanisation of the working class takes place.
4) alienation takes place at all levels.
We then described Marx’s remedy for this situation, namely, revolution
which would establish a communist society where each individual could
develop his/her creative powers.
Finally, we compared the views of Durkheim and Marx under the following
headings
1) Causes of division of labour
2) Consequences of division of labour
3) Solutions to the problems related to division of labour
4) Durkheim’s functional model of society and Marx’s conflict model. 53
Max Weber
20.7 KEYWORDS
Assembly line A feature of the modern factory system
wherein workers assemble or put together
the various parts of a commodity or
perform certain operations on it. Each has
a specific task to do. This speeds up
production.
Anomie This term is used by Durkheim to convey
a situation in which the individual does not
feel integrated in society. Social norms and
values seem unclear and unintegrated and
the individual does not feel morally
involved with the affairs of society.
Complementary Something that helps, supports e.g. the role
of a nurse is complementary to that of a
doctor.
Consensus Agreement amongst the members of
society regarding social norms, values,
allocation of roles and rewards. Consensus
helps to maintain social order.
Conflict model of society This is a way of looking at society which
stresses on the tensions which mark society,
rather than social order. According to Marx,
the social relations of production are the
basis of tensions and conflict.
Functional model of society This way of looking a society stresses on
social order and studies how different
social institutions and sub-systems function
or contribute to maintaining social order.
Heterogeneous Opposite of ‘homogeneous’: This means
variety, different types, e.g. India has a
heterogeneous population, i.e. a variety of
races, languages, religions, customs, etc.
Surplus value When a worker applies his labour power
to raw materials, they are converted into
commodities. A certain value is added by
the worker to the materials. The value
created is greater than what is paid to the
worker as wages. This difference between
the value created and the wage received is
called ‘surplus value’. Marx says this
surplus value is appropriated by the
capitalist.

54
 Division of Labour –
20.8 FURTHER READING Durkheim and Marx

Aron, Raymond 1970. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vols. 1

and 2. Penguin Books: London, (see the sections on Marx and Durkheim)
Bottomore, Tom (Ed.) 1983. Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell:
Oxford.
Giddens, Anthony 1978. Durkheim. Harvester Press: Hassocks

20.9 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
i) a) Small-scale, domestic large-scale, mass
b) Division of labour
c) Adam Smith
ii) a) F
b) F
c) T
Check Your Progress 2
i) a) F
b) F
c) F
d) F
ii) a) mechanical solidarity is a solidarity of resemblence. Organic
solidarity is based on differences and complementarity of
differences. Thus individuals can be innovative and at the same
time need to depend on each other and on society. So
individualism and social integration can exist together. Durkheim
therefore feels that organic solidarity is a higher form of solidarity.
b) Material and moral density help the members of a society come
into close contact with each other. A struggle for existence and
for scarce resources may come about. In order that they may
coexist, individuals specialise in separate fields and division of
labour takes place. Thus material and moral density lead to division
of labour according to Durkheim.
c) Anomie, according to Durkheim, is’ ‘pathological’ or abnormal.
It refers to a situation where norms and rules seem to have broken
down. In the sphere of work, for example, individuals have to
work and produce but there are no new norms governing them.
They fail to see any meaning or purpose in their activity.
55
Max Weber Check Your Progress 3
i) a) Social division of labour is a complex system of dividing all the
useful forms of labour in society. Some people may produce food,
others handicraft etc. It promotes exchange of goods and is
necessary to maintain social and economic life.
b) Division of labour in manufacture makes the worker a small part
of the production process. The worker does not have anything to
do with the product. He/she cannot sell it and often cannot buy
it, and thus becomes a slave, not a master of the process of
production of goods.
ii) a) ii b) i c) iii
Check Your Progress 4
i)

Durkheim’s Views Marx’s Views

b) A0
c) d)
e) e)
f) g)
h)

ii) By Emile Durkheim’s “functional” model of society we mean the way

in which he studied the contributions of social institutions and processes
in maintaining social integration. In keeping with this model, he studied
division of labour not just as an economic process but as a social one.
He tried to show how it contributed to social integration.
Karl Marx, on the other hand saw society in terms of contradictions,
conflict and change. Human history is marked by the oppression of
one group by another. Division of labour is one of the processes
through which capitalists oppress workers. This reflects his ‘conflict’
model of society.

56