Social interaction, Definition, Elements, Types &

Forms
Social interaction is the basis of the whole social order. Social group is the product of social interaction. There
is interaction among animals and birds also. It is the real foundation of all social processes, structure, social
groups and functions. In sociology interaction is the gate of its knowledge.

First you should aware that What is an interaction in sociology? It is a social process between two or more
than two persons. It is always reciprocal in nature. It can be called a stimulus-response condition among the
individuals. It is like a bandied ball against a wall. When two persons talk with each other or respond to each
other on telephone or internet, develop correspondence through letter, there is an interaction. A mother
suckling milk to her child, there is interaction between mother and her child. A doctor attends a patient, a
customer buys a thing from a shopkeeper and a passenger gets ticket from the booking clerk. It means
interaction is social relationship among the individuals. It. is a sort of action and reaction position among the
people.
Definition of Social Interaction
Dawson and Gettyes define Social Interaction as “it is a process by which men interpenetrate the minds of each
other”.

According to Merrill, “Social-interaction is the general process whereby two or more persons are in a
meaningful contact, as a result of which their behavior is modified however slightly.”

According to Corkiness. “Social interaction is such a process which influences the overt behavior or state of
mind of the individuals.”

Social interaction is an event which changes the behavior and attitude of the interacting persons. It is a social
relationship among at least two persons. It changes the societal conditions of life of the people. Interaction is
the soul of social life and relationship. It produces group which is the foundation stone of society.

Elements of Social Interaction

The following are the elements of social interaction:

1. Two or more than two persons

2. Reciprocal relationship among them
3. Influence on the event, behavior, brain of the persons.
These three conditions interrelate the people among themselves and convert them into social groups.

Types of Social Interaction

According to Young and Mack there are two types of social interaction between people and societies

Direct or Physical Interaction: it involves physical action among the individuals. Beating, biting, thrashing,
pulling, pushing, killing, scratching, boxing, wrestling, kissing etc. are the examples of direct interaction. Two
teams playing match and a war between the forces of two countries are also examples of this interaction. This
Types influences other by physical action in different ways.
Symbolic Interaction: There are different types of relationships between people. It involves the use of
language and symbols. It means communication through a common language is symbolic process. This is the
most common method of human societies. Human beings convey their ideas through language and it is
completed by reciprocal response. The methods of communication devised by man are sharp and effective than
these of animals. All cultures develop, expand and change only through language symbolic interaction.
Without language no culture can live. There is no culture in animals due to the fact that there is no common
language among them. Through language man stores its previous experiences and transmits them to the
following generation with a change.
Man uses instruments to facilitate this. Telephone, wireless, telegraph, postal system, rail, road, sea and air
services all are various means of communication and transportation. Gestures are also symbolic ones. Deaf and
dumb convey their ideas through voice, and gestures of hands and eyes.

What are the Forms of Social Interaction in a Society

It is found in various forms among human societies

Between individual and individual: It is the interaction between at least two persons. The doctor and the
patient, the mother and the child, the customer and the shopkeeper are the various examples in this case.
Between individual and group: It operates between one person and more. A teacher teaching his class a
speaker addressing the audience, an Imam leading prayers are its common examples.
Between group and group: This is found between two groups of people like two teams playing match, two
forces fighting against each other, two delegates discussing an issue.
Between individuals and culture: This form is found when the people listen to radio, see television, read
newspaper enjoy pictures and observe exhibitions. Radio, T.V. cinema, newspapers, books, exhibitions,
theatre, drama, circus, fairs and other socio-cultural activities are included in the Culture of a society. People
have social interaction and social relationship with these media of mass communication and get social change
in their life. The people change these media as they require on the other hand. In this way reciprocal process
between the people and the culture goes on.

https://helpfulprofessor.com/social-interaction-types-and-examples/#google_vignette
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/english/international-english/social-interaction/

ClassSystem Theclasssystemisasystemofstratificationofsocietyonthebasisofeducation,property,
business/worketc.SociologyasasubjectdealswiththeClassSystemandprovidesdefinitions
andunderstandingoftehsubjectofclassinsociety.
KarlMax-'Manisaclassanimal'i.e.hisstatusage,educationetcarenotsameinthesociety.

CommonBasisForDivisionOfClass
Property–capitalist&thepoor–thehaves&thehavenots.
Education-Illiterate&literate

BusinessorOccupation-farmers,clerkofficers,industrialistsetc.
Thebehaviorofapersonisfixedduetotheirclassconsciousness.Tradeunionisaresultof
classconsciousness.Theseisfeelingofsuperiority&inferiorityinclasssyst.Thehigherhas
thefeelingsuperiority&thelowerclassfeelsinferior.Intheseclassestoothereissubclasses
asUpperOpenclass,middleupperclass,lowerupperclass;lowermiddleclass,middleclass;
upperlowerclass,middlelowerclass,tolower2class.Classsystemisopenincharacter.
Becauseitisbasedonavarietyofthingslikeage,sexetc.Alsoonecanchangeone'sless
easily.Thepeopleoflowerclassmayentertheupperclass&thoseoftheupperclassmay
becomemembersofthelowerclass

DefinitionOfClassSystem Followingaresomeoftheclasssystemdefinitionsaspersociologists.
P.Gisbert-"Asocialclassisacategoryorgroupofpersonshavingadefinitestatusinsociety
whichpermanentlydeterminestheirrelationtoothergroup–feelingofsuperiority&inferiorities.
Therelativepositionoftheclassinthesocialscalearisesfromthedegreeofprestigeattached tothestatus.
Maxweber–heldthat"classesareaggregateofindividualswhohavethesameopportunities
ofacquiringgoods.Thesameexhibitedstandardoflining.
Ingeneral"Asocialclassconsistsofgroupofindividualswhoarerankedbythemembersofthe
communityinsociallysuperiorinferiorposition

CharacteristicsofClassSystem: Classsystemisbasedonoccupation,wealth,education,ageandsex.
Hierarchyofstatusgroup.Ingeneralthereare3class–uppermiddle&tower.Status,prestige
&roleisattached.Upperclassarelessinnoincomparisontotheothertwowhereastheir
status&prestigeismost.Thisislikeapyramid.Karlmax(Rich&poor)preliterate&
Feelingofsuperiority&inferiority.Inthese3classestherearesuchfeelingstheupperclass
peoplefeeltheyaresuperiortotheothertwowhereasthelowerclassfeelsitisinferiortothe upperclass.
Classconsciousness–whereveraclassisformedthisfeelingaconsciousnessisamust.
Thereshouldbefeelingofingroupi.e.Ibelongclassconflictisduetothisthepeopleofthe
preliterateclassfeeltheupperclassexploitsthemtheirtheyuniterevolt.Thebehavioractionis
determinedbythisclassconsciousness. Sub-
classes,classisdividedintodifferentgroups.Similartocastesystem,theclasssystemis divided.
Classsystemisanopensystem.
There'ssocialrestrictioninthistoo.Ingeneralthereisendogamyinaclass.Tomaintaintheir
status&positiontheymixamongthemselves&itisseldomthatmarriagebetweenupper&
lowerclassiswished.DistinctionbetweenCaste&class.Theyarethetwophenomenaofsocial
stratification(Stratificationisdivisionofsocietyonthebasisofbirth)

What is Caste System?

The caste system has been taken as an important unit under Hindu
social organization. It has been also taken as an extremely strange
system, where society is stratified through segmental division of
society, Where Brahmins and Chhetriyas remain at the top of the social
ladder, Vaishyas at the middle, and Shudras at the lowest ladder.

Occupation, social relationship, status, and the role of each caste

under this system have been fixed by birth as per their caste. This kind
of social system is found only in the Hindu caste system. Caste within
this system has the feeling of superiority and inferiority. The entire
social system of Hindu society has been controlled by the caste
system.
The caste system, the joint family system, and village life are still the
three basic pillars of Indian and Nepalese life. Caste is a predetermined
social category based on birth i.e. ascribed status. Once born in a caste
he has to remain the same. Status, position, and prestige are fixed
according to his caste. The castes are divided into sub-caste. E.g. the
caste system in Hindu society in Nepal and India. Hence, caste is
closely connected with Hindu philosophy and religion.

The caste system is a barrier to social mobility. The caste system in

which people are confined to the occupations and the statuses of their
ancestors is the most extreme example of a closed-class society.

Open vs. Closed Systems

A Closed System of social stratification is one in which status is
ascribed from birth. In a closed system, there is little or no social
mobility. E.g. caste-based society is a closed system.

An Open System of social stratification is one in which status is

achieved through merit or effort. In this system, social mobility is more
likely. E.g. class-based society is an open system.

Definition:
 C.H. Cooley defines caste as, “when a class is somewhat strictly hereditary,
we may call it a caste.”
 Anderson and Parker, “Caste is that extreme form of social class
organization in which the position of individuals in the status hierarchy is
determined by descent and birth.”
 Collins dictionary of sociology, “caste system is a form of social
stratification which involves a system of hierarchically ranked, closed
 endogamous strata, the membership of which is ascribed and between
which contact is restricted and mobility theoretically impossible.”

The Origin of the Term ‘Caste’ and

‘Caste System’
The term ‘Caste’ is derived from the Spanish word ‘casta‘ meaning
breed or ‘lineage’. The Portuguese used the term caste first to denote
the divisions in the Indian caste system. The Sanskrit word for caste is
‘Varna‘ which means ‘color’. Color in the original form of caste
signifies the basis of divisions along with occupation.

The origin of this caste system in Nepalese and Indian society relates
to the ‘Chaturvarna‘ system of Hindu philosophy. Chaturvarna
doctrine explains the Hindu society was divided into four main varnas,
namely, Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas, and the Shudras. The
Varna system which was prevalent during the Vedic period was mainly
based on the division of occupation and labor. The caste system,
therefore, has its origin in the Varna system.

The Portuguese applied the term caste to the classes of people, in

Nepal and India, or Hindu society, it is known by the name of “Jaat” or
“Jaati“.

Characteristics of Caste
Caste as a traditional system has the following characteristics:

Caste as a hierarchal division of society: The Hindu society is a

traditional one. It is divided into several small groups called caste and
sub-castes. A sense of highness and lowness or superiority or
inferiority is associated with this gradation or ranking. The Brahmins
are placed at the top of the hierarchy and regarded as pure, supreme,
or superior. The degraded caste and so-called untouchables have
occupied the other end of the hierarchy.

Caste as a segmental division of society: Hindu society is divided

into many social segments called caste. Castes are groups with a
defined boundary of their own. The status of an individual is
determined by his birth and not by his selection or accomplishments.
Each caste has its way of life, customs, traditions, practices, rituals,
informal rules, and regulations and procedures.

Restrictions on food habits: The caste system has imposed certain

restrictions on the food habits of the member, they differ from caste
to caste. We should accept what kind of food and form is often
decided by the caste. Generally in Nepali society, any kind of food
prepared by Brahmins is acceptable to all castes of people. Further
restrictions are also there on the use of certain vegetables like onions,
garlic, etc. today most of the brahmins do not eat beef but other lower
castes do.

Restrictions on social relations: The caste system puts restrictions on

the range of social relations. The practice of pollution separates the
touchable and untouchables which also determines the relationship
between them.

Social and religious disabilities of certain castes: So-called

untouchables are forced to live on the outskirts of the village. Even
today many places, are not allowed in entering sacred places, in
touching the wells, in participating in public ceremonies, and
somewhere in entering school.
Civil and religious privileges of certain castes: In many ways, upper
caste people, in general, enjoy social, political, legal, and religious
privileges. E.g. Brahmins never salute others but they always had the
privilege of being saluted by others.

Restriction on occupational choice: In a caste-ridden society, there is

a gradation of occupations also. Some occupations are considered
superior and sacred e.g. learning priesthood, teaching, etc. while
certain occupations are considered degrading and inferior like shoe-
making, sweeping, hide tanning, washing clothes, barbering, etc. so
each caste has its specific occupation and are expected to continue
some occupation.

Restriction on marriage: The caste system imposes restrictions on

marriage also. A caste is an endogamous group. Endogamy is a rule of
marriage according to which an individual has to marry within his or
her group i.e. caste. Brahmins marry Brahmins, Chhetris with Chhetri,
etc.

How is Caste a Basis for Stratification?

The ‘caste system’ is one form of social stratification. The caste system
in traditional India and Nepal, and slavery in the southern states of the
US in the 19th century are all types of stratification. Caste is popularly
understood as a “closed system” of social stratification in which social
groups, often divided based on their occupations, strictly follow a
code of behavior prescribed by tradition regarding marriage and
kinship alliances. Caste groups are unequal, ranked on a scale of
hierarchy based on their ritual status, purity, and impurity.

Castes also explain why some societies offer little social mobility. E.g. if
a person belongs to a lower caste, then it is difficult or impossible for
that person to achieve a higher status because one cannot change
one’s caste. Interaction between people of different castes is restricted.
For e.g, people must practice endogamy (marriage within their caste).

Based on caste, there are high caste (touchable) and low caste
(untouchables). E.g. in Japan, low castes are called Buraku. They are
discriminated against in all activities of society. In Nepal and India,
there is a caste system consisting of four broad social classes (or
varna): Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. The caste system
defines social categories by many hierarchical endogamous groups
often termed “jaat” in Nepali. Because of the caste system, there is
different social, economic, and political status. E.g. Brahmins and
Chhetris are dominant while Dalits (Kami, Damai, Sarki, etc.) are
suppressed

Caste Systems
In a caste system, people are born into unequal groups based on their parents’ status
and remain in these groups for the rest of their lives. For many years, the best-known
caste system was in India, where, supported by Hindu beliefs emphasizing the
acceptance of one’s fate in life, several major castes dictated one’s life chances from
the moment of birth, especially in rural areas (Kerbo, 2009). People born in the lower
castes lived in abject poverty throughout their lives. Another caste, the harijan,
or untouchables, was considered so low that technically it was not thought to be a
caste at all. People in this caste were called the untouchables because they were
considered unclean and were prohibited from coming near to people in the higher
castes. Traditionally, caste membership in India almost totally determined an
individual’s life, including what job you had and whom you married; for example, it
was almost impossible to marry someone in another caste. After India won its
independence from Britain in 1949, its new constitution granted equal rights to the
untouchables. Modern communication and migration into cities further weakened the
caste system, as members of different castes now had more contact with each other.
Still, caste prejudice remains a problem in India and illustrates the continuing
influence of its traditional system of social stratification.
A country that used to have a caste system is South Africa. In the days of apartheid,
from 1950 to 1990, a small group of white Afrikaners ruled the country. Black people
constituted more than three-quarters of the nation’s population and thus greatly
outnumbered Afrikaners, but they had the worst jobs, could not vote, and lived in
poor, segregated neighborhoods. Afrikaners bolstered their rule with the aid of the
South African police, which used terror tactics to intimidate blacks (I. Berger, 2009).

Many observers believe a caste system also existed in the South in the United States
after Reconstruction and until the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended legal
segregation. A segregated system called Jim Crow dominated the South, and even
though African Americans had several rights, including the right to vote, granted to
them by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, these rights were
denied in practice. Lynchings were common for many decades, and the Southern
police system bolstered white rule in the South just as the South African police system
bolstered white rule in that country (Litwack, 2009).

Class System • Class is a group of people with similar level of wealth, influence and status. • The class
system is a type of stratification based on the ownership and control of resources and on the type of
work people do. • The status is achieved than ascribed. Though individuals born in wealthy families and
influential families have better access to resources, and opportunities. • It is an open system with
increased social mobility. may The individuals become members of a class other than that of their
parents

CLASS SYSTEM •Class is Economic Group. A class is group of people who have similar level of wealth and
income •Feelings: Equality, Inferiority, Superiority •Exogamy- the custom of marrying outside a
community, clan, or tribe . compatibility is more important ( Neolocal marriages)

UPPER CLASS • These are elite families with great wealth who dominate the economic system of every
society. • There is a concept of ‘old money’ those with vast inherited wealth and ‘new money’ a group of
people who recently have achieved success and wealth. • They are few and far between in any society,
and makes about 1% of the whole population. • They have their own norms which are distinct from the
other groups. • They enjoy all luxuries of life. • The upper class of Pakistan has landlords, politicians, and
business tycoons

MIDDLE CLASS •The members of the middle class earn their money by working (small business owners)
or doing professional jobs( as managers, doctors, lawyers, professors, and teachers). •Some of the
individuals are highly educated professional people with high incomes, such as doctors, lawyers, while
some may be less educated people with lower incomes, such as small business owners, and clerks.

MIDDLE CLASS •They earn enough to live well than lower class, but are financially weaker than upper
class. •Holding a relatively secure job is the single most important characteristic of the M-class. •Social
mobility is found highest in this class. •This class is the best example of DEFERRED GRATIFICATION
PATTERN , which means, postponing immediate enjoyment in order to gain a big goal! Most parents
ignore their needs and spend their saved money for their children’s college fee

LOWER CLASS •The members of lower class have a low educational level, are not skilled, and work at
minimum-wage jobs.(factory workers, daily wagers, seasonal laborers, etc) •They do not have enough
earning to support themselves, some may depend on public assistance (social safety nets) or lend
money from others for their survival.

LOWER CLASS •Social mobility is the lowest in them as they are engaged in manual labor that is
underpaid so they have no opportunity for career advancement. •Rate of deviance is high in them.
•Most of the Members of this class are living below poverty line. They lack the means to meet their
basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter The term social mobility refers to the movement of
individuals and groups between different socio -economic positions. Vertical mobility means movement
up or down.
http://www.uop.edu.pk/ocontents/SOCIAL%20STRATIFICATION.pdf

https://www.sociologydiscussion.com/caste-system/class-and-caste-system-of-society/2645

http://cms.gcg11.ac.in/attachments/article/214/unit%203%20caste%20and%20class.pdf

https://tyonote.com/social_class/

arly theories of class

John Locke

Henri de Saint-Simon

Theories of social class were fully elaborated only in the 19th century as the
modern social sciences, especially sociology, developed. Political philosophers such
as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discussed the issues of
social inequality and stratification, and French and English writers in the late 18th and
early 19th centuries put forth the idea that the nonpolitical elements in society, such as
the economic system and the family, largely determined a society’s form of political life.
This idea was taken farther by the French social theorist Henri de Saint-Simon, who
argued that a state’s form of government corresponded to the character of
the underlying system of economic production. Saint-Simon’s successors introduced the
theory of the proletariat, or urban working class, as a major political force in modern
society, directly influencing the development of Karl Marx’s theory of class, which has
dominated later discussion of the topic.
Karl Marx’s social theory of class

Karl Marx

For Marx, what distinguishes one type of society from another is its mode
of production (i.e., the nature of its technology and division of labour), and each mode
of production engenders a distinctive class system in which one class controls and
directs the process of production while another class is, or other classes are, the direct
producers and providers of services to the dominant class. The relations between the
classes are antagonistic because they are in conflict over the appropriation of what is
produced, and in certain periods, when the mode of production itself is changing as a
result of developments in technology and in the utilization of labour, such conflicts
become extreme and a new class challenges the dominance of the existing rulers of
society. The dominant class, according to Marx, controls not only material production
but also the production of ideas; it thus establishes a particular cultural style and a
dominant political doctrine, and its control over society is consolidated in a particular
type of political system. Rising classes that gain strength and influence as a result of
changes in the mode of production generate political doctrines and movements in
opposition to the ruling class.

The theory of class is at the centre of Marx’s social theory, for it is the social classes
formed within a particular mode of production that tend to establish a particular form
of state, animate political conflicts, and bring about major changes in the structure of
society.

https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-social-class/

SOCIAL STATUS: CASTE VS. CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

 Caste system is a very complex and intricate social system that determines social status

achieved by birth. There are four different ways in which ones social status can be

determined or can be controlled by caste: (1) Occupation or the work that a person does.

(2) Marrying another person within their own caste only. (3) Socializing with other

people within their own caste only. (4) Indulge into the religious code of belief or social

ideology that reinforces or strengthens the caste system only. There are five varnas or

social orders created by the Hindu god Brahman, which is highly believed to be the

classification of people for the caste system. (1) Brahmans or high priests. These priests

have the responsibilities to provide the spiritual and intellectual needs of the society.

(2) Kshatriyas or the warriors and the rulers. These warriors and rulers have the

responsibility to protect the society. (3) Vaishyas or the merchants and the land owners.

These people were entrusted by Brahman for the agriculture and commerce of the

society. (4) Shudras or the laborers and the artisans. These people are commissioned to

do and perform all the human labor for the society. (5) The Untouchables, the lowest

class where all the dirty jobs relating to bodily decay and dirt.
 Class system is also achieved by birth. But the big difference with it from caste is that

one’s social status can be changed. It’s more humane. If you were born a peasant, you

just might have to climb up that social ladder through nit and grit to become successful

in life. If you were born a royalty, then there’s also that big possibility that you’ll be

sacked off your throne. Merit is achieved or given out under the class system if a person

would be able to move up from a lower class to the upper class. These social climbing

is best achieved through education, employment, and skills. Scholars believe that the

class system is based on wealth, power and economic status. The class system is

identified with three categories: the Upper class, the extremely wealthy and powerful

bunch of people; the Middle class, the highly paid professionals; and the Lower class,

the weak and the poor.

SUMMARY:

 Caste system screams of inequality because no person can change his/her social stratum

under caste system. In short, he/she is stuck as being one of the five varnas until the day

that he/she dies. Class system, on the other hand, is more human as one person can

climb up and down the social ladder as much as he/she can.

 Caste system has been outlawed but many people in India still practice it. Class system,

although not creed by the law is somehow generally observed in every modern society.

 Both caste and class system’s social status are achieved by birth.

 Differences between Class and Caste Systems!

 In Max Weber’s phraseology, caste and class are both status groups. While castes are

perceived as hereditary groups with a fixed ritual status, social classes are defined in

terms of the relations of production. A social class is a category of people who have a

similar socio-economic status in relation to other classes in the society. The individuals

and families which are classified as part of the same social class have similar life

chances, prestige, style of life, attitudes etc.

 In the caste system, status of a caste is determined not by the economic and the political

privileges but by the ritualistic legitimation of authority. In the class system, ritual

norms have no importance at all but power and wealth alone determine one’s status

(Dumont, 1958).

 Class system differs in many respects from other forms of stratification—slavery, estate

and caste system. In earlier textbooks such as written by Maclver, Davis and Bottomore,

it was observed that caste and class are polar opposites. They are antithetical to each

other. While ‘class’ represents a ‘democratic society’ having equality of opportunity,

‘caste’ is obverse of it.

CASTE AND CLASS

 A principle difference between class and caste is that class in open for all and social

mobility is possible. In the caste system the vertical mobility is not possible. Caste in

India has religious background and everybody tries to fulfill the caste duties, but in

class system of social stratification religion has place. There the physical and mental

qualities are more important.

 Caste and Class jointly determine the position of an individual in social strain.

Particularly in rural communities where caste system has maintained its rigidity. It

forms the basic for economic and special life. In a single village there may be as many

as 24 castes and of these are interdependent. Even in the urban society a constant

tendency to make caste distinction is observed in the upper and middle classes. Thus

the castes have maintained their importance in class system of social stratification.

feudal system

https://factsanddetails.com/south-asia/Pakistan/Life/entry-8099.html

Feudal system has almost disappeared from the face of the earth, but it still exists in Pakistan. The feudal lords are
the prominent members of our society. The culture in the feudal lordship system is diametrically opposed to the
Islamic norms and values, and democracy. Feudalism, in the case of Pakistan, is a system comprising landlords who
own large swathes of land, hundreds and even thousands of acres of land. Simply put, it means thousands of acres of
land in the hands of only a few. This system, indeed, hinders progress and abolishes social integration, which is
pivotal for the structure of the society.
 Feudal system is, undoubtedly, deeply rooted in Pakistani society, especially in rural Sindh, southern Punjab and
certain parts of Balochistan. In our society, there are two extremes; one side lives in the height of depravity and
misery whereas the other in relishing in luxury and extravagance. So gloomy! But, this is what we actually witness
and experience.

Since a huge chunk of income of the British colonizers in the Indian Subcontinent came from land, they, for this
purpose, had introduced Zamindari, Mahalwari and Ryotwari systems here.

1. Zimindari system:
This system was introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793, through Permanent Settlement Act, in Bihar, Orissa,
Benaras and Bengal. In this system of land regulation, the landlord – the person who was awarded a piece of land by
the British – was solely in charge of revenue collection. The amount they collected would be divided into 11 parts;
1/11 of the share belonging to the Zamindar and the remaining to the East India Company. This meant that the
British administration had no direct dealings with the peasants.

2. Rytowri system
The Ryotwari system was introduced by Thomas Munro in 1820 mainly in the South Indian region, in modern
Indian states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, and others. In this system, the British awarded peasants the ownership of
their land, making this is a system of peasant-proprietorship. Hence, all revenue collection was made directly from
the peasants who worked on and owned the land they cultivated.

3. The Mahalwari system:

It was introduced in 1833 during the period of William Bentinck in the western part of Subcontinent— Central
Province, North-West Frontier, Agra, Punjab, Gangetic Valley— and areas making up the modern-day Pakistan.
This system was based on village groups; the land was granted to prominent members in the village for cultivation.

Although the British colonizers have left, this parasitic curse still exists here for the exploitation of lower rungs of
society. This system is the real impediment to development; it brings political instability, inflation and weak
governance. To make Pakistan great politically and economically, this cancerous cell must be eradicated. Until the
eradication of this system, we, as a nation, cannot imagine prosperous economy and a truly functional justice system
in Pakistan.
Feudal system promotes two different cultures: ‘culture of feudal impunity’ and culture of poverty. The former
refers to a system in which the landlords go scot-free even after committing horrendous and heinous crimes due to
their overwhelming influence over police and judicial administration. The police usually don’t register an FIR (First
Information Report) against a wadera or a chowdhry. The puppet-like mullahs also are in their interest and in certain
scenarios they concoct their own version of Islamic principles and norms. This culture has hijacked the minds of the
people, especially in villages. So, the poor are unable to raise voice for their rights.
The latter, i.e. the culture of poverty, is a result of values and belief systems. People feel inferior and think for
‘living for the present’ only.

The words of the landlords are considered ‘law’. These landlords keep their peasants uneducated. However, after
decades of exploitation, peasants, especially the young generation, now really want to get rid of this cancerous
system. But, they have failed in getting any tangible results as landlords are sitting in the legislatures where they
make laws that help them control the ‘undesirable behaviour’ of the peasants. Patriotism, to them, means self-
interest. This is perilous for the country and hazardous to social and national integration. To have a prosperous
society, this sort of evil must be rooted out.

We the Pakistanis lag far behind even many developing countries in education, social integration and humanity, and
this is only due to this feudal system which is the real anathema for socioeconomic development and political
stability. Thus, it can be said that that stability, especially political, social justice and rule of law are the products of
an egalitarian system.

The principal reason behind the strong feudalism in Pakistani society is that land reforms, one of the reasons of
strong feudal culture, were not carried out sincerely. During Ayub era, these reforms were introduced but they were
limited only to individuals rather than families. Bhutto’s land reforms were also never implemented in letter and
spirit.

Political power is also a major factor of strong feudalism. Our politicians are landlords who have, as mentioned
earlier, a tremendous influence over judicial administrators, police and public. Through these institutions, the
landlords facilitate their paths to provincial and national assemblies. Democracy, as a popular definition goes, “is
government of the people, for the people, by the people,” but in the context of Pakistan, it is “of the feudal, for the
feudals and by the feudals.”

Last but not least, debts bondage gives muscularity to feudalism in our society. The posterity of the peasants is
deprived of education by the landlords. Sadly, the tenants are born and die in poverty. The bondage of their debts
ends with death only.

Feudalism hampers politico-economic development by creating a greater degree of psychological panic in the minds
of the have-nots. It deprives the masses of health, education and even independent life, and invariably pressurizes
and controls them. Ergo, they surrender their aims and ambitions in the lap of these ‘monsters’. They put to end their
dreams and ambitions of their kids for the sake of these landlords, who make life a ‘living hell’ for the peasants.

The panacea for the ill of feudalism is education, strong and sincere land reforms and strong governance. Non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) should also play a great role in demolishing this parasitical system.
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/social-studies/stratification-and-differentiation/social-mobility/

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/social-mobility/

https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/social-mobility-the-meaning-types-and-factors-responsible-for-social-
mobility/8539

Types Of Social Mobility

Mobility could be categorized based on direction. Horizontal mobility involves an
alteration in position without any concomitant alteration in social class. This may
involve a change in occupation.

Subscribe To Simply Sociology!

Get updates on the latest posts and more from Simply Sociology straight to your inbox.
SUBSCRIBE

I consent to receiving emails and personalized ads.

An executive who switches from one company to another while retaining the
essential aspects of his/her job description affords a striking example in this
regard. Herein, no substantial change has occurred to his/her social class.

Vertical mobility, on the other hand, is twofold. A coal miner who works hard and
eventually ends up owning a major mining company is someone who experiences
upward mobility.

Conversely, wealthy aristocrats who lose all their property during a violent
revolution are victims of downward mobility.

Causes Of Social Mobility

Revolutions
Revolutions often result in sudden and massive restructurings of societies. While
previously marginalized groups may ascend to power, many who had been long
accustomed to wealth, prestige and power may end up losing everything.
The French Revolution which saw the massacre of many elites and religious
leaders, is a notable example.

Migration
Migration across international boundaries is another factor which has been
historically responsible for especially upward mobility.

People may often choose to leave their homes and travel across oceans to either
seek better opportunities or flee persecution.

Well-known figures such as Golda Meir and Henry Kissinger are examples of
individuals who fled their homelands due to persecution and eventually tasted
the pinnacle of success in their fields of endeavor.

Colonial Expansion
Colonial expansion by Western European nations yielded different results to
various groups. The subjugation of many indigenous peoples and the elevation of
the invaders cannot escape notice.

It bears noting however, that the European conquerors were not the sole
beneficiaries of colonialism.

For instance, slavery had existed in Sri Lanka beginning roughly in the second
century (long before the colonial era) due to the caste system as well as unpaid
debts.

However, thanks to the British colonial officers, the institution of slavery was
completely abolished in 1844.

Additionally, the British remunerated workers in cash, eliminated state

monopolies, and ended compulsory labor service.

These reforms served to elevate marginalized populations who had hitherto been
trodden upon by the native elites.
Self-effort
Rag-to-riches stories we often hear are not isolated anecdotes. They reflect a
trend of upward mobility seen in many free-enterprise democracies.

Only about 20% of millionaires in the United States, for instance, actually inherit
their wealth. This means the rest (about 80%) could be described as first-
generation, self-made millionaires.

A survey by Fidelity Investments in 2017 discovered that only 12% of millionaires

inherit 10% or more of their net worth, while 88% of millionaires had earned
their wealth themselves.

Moreover, according to a study by Wealth-X from 2019, about 68% of the people
possessing a net worth of at least $30 million, had made their money themselves
(instead of inheriting it).

As noted by many financial experts such as Thomas Stanley, Dave Ramsey,

Darren Hardy and Robert Kiyosaki, these numbers have more to do with hard
work and wise planning than good fortune or innate talent.

Implications
The loss of life, limb, and property accrued to some ensuing violent revolutions is
an evidently adverse result of mobility.

Additionally, the forms of culture shock that may accompany horizontal mobility,
often experienced by newcomers to various occupations as well as geographical
regions are far from favorable.

Moreover, the anxiety and isolation associated with upward mobility for many
cannot evade attention.

Conversely, however, the rise in income, the improvement in the standard of

living and the advancement in prestige enjoyed by especially those who
experience alterations in status upward, should be viewed as manifest advantages
of mobility.

determinants :
https://www.slideshare.net/asadpsh/social-mobility-its-nature-and-
determinents

So
cial mobility in Pakistan
According to human nature every human wants superior job in the society
for achieving that
superior job people do sometimes hard work and sometimes smart work
but almost the people
who worked hard and smart they achieved that
superior job/status in that society during that
period of time people moves from one place/position to another so that is
called social mobility
OR in other words the movement of any class from one status to another is
also said to be as
social mobility.
I
n the whole world there is no country where social mobility is not existence
somewhere social
mobility is at the top position and somewhere is very low according to the
social mobility
ranking report of 2020 Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland are
the five top
countries where social mobility is existence out of 82 countries while
Pakistan is at 79
th
position where social mobility is very low in current period of time if we look
around our society
there will be very less chances that you met unknow
n person in your society. In Pakistan social
mobility is highest in middle social classes where 56 percent of these
classes are living cities and
towns where 44 percent are living in rural areas mostly these middle social
classes moves from
one place to an
other for education purposes and they are the more educated than other
social
classes on the other hand only 2 percent are in upper social classes these
types of people
mostly moves for business purposes and working social class in Pakistan is
nearly 42 pe
rcent in
this social class social mobility is almost non
-
existence/lowest in them. All the social classes
moves in the whole world according to their needs but in Pakistan all the
sectors are not
developed if sometimes people moves for health
purposes
ther
e is less hospitals which
provides good hospitality, for education Pakistan is having less institutions
which gives you
outstanding education, for skill learning purposes there is almost not
available any institution
where you learn skills etc so that’s wh
y we ca
n say social mobility is very less in Pakistan.
Every
society of the Pakistan
has social mobility. Though the rate of mobility is different in all the
societies depending upon their cultural condition. The following are i
n the factors which bring
ab
out social
mobility
Causes
of Social Mobility:
Dissatisfaction from previous condition
The people stick to the same condition does not fulfill the purpose of new
social ways of
living. They leave it and attend to the new condition of life.
the study
are
shows People
achieving higher levels of employment and home ownership than their
parents. 83 percent
are in
management position or running their own businesses compared to 65
percent of
their father and 28 percent of their mothers.88 percent of the soc
ial mobile own their own
home, compared to 81 percent of their parents at the same age.
Adoption of new conditions
The people leaving the old
conditions adopt the new ones which are functional according to
the new ways of living. This adoption of new way o
f living is called
Adoption of new
condition.
Pakistan's emerging affluent are comfortable going online for financial
advice,
with majority (60 percent) saying they would invest in financial product
online if an on
demand adviser was available
Industrial
and Technological Development
The development of technology and industry brings about a have in the
social
economic
structure of society. The modes of living of the people are changed which
bring about
change in attitudes, ideas, habits, customs and
sentiment of the people. It means total socio
cultural
life is changed. He we get social mobility.
Education
The progress of education is imperative in
industrially advanced society. The development
of technology industry and education are simultaneous pro
cesses being correlated.
Advancement in education makes a society mobile.
Pakistan have
better educated and
achieving higher levels of employment and than their parents. 89 percent
went to
university, compared to 66 percent to their
fathers
Urbanization
T
he development of urban population and modern attitude is called
urbanization It is also
attached with the development of education, technology and industry.
These factors are
interrelated together. According to the
2017 population census Pakistan
showed t
he
highest rate of urbanization in south Asia
which is34.6% of the population lives in urban
area.
This factor of urbanization is being guessed due to high rate of expansion
in
technology industry and education in this city
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s9xn_x3avE

https://triumphias.com/blog/what-is-poverty/

The Culture of Poverty: An In-Depth Explanation

Introduction: The concept of the "Culture of Poverty" emerged in the 1960s as a

sociological theory put forth by Oscar Lewis. This theory posits that individuals living in
poverty share certain cultural norms, values, and behaviors that perpetuate their
disadvantaged status. It suggests that growing up in poverty leads to the development
of a distinct culture that is characterized by fatalism, resignation, lack of future
orientation, and a sense of helplessness. This culture, according to the theory, is passed
down from one generation to another, creating a cycle of poverty that is challenging to
escape.

Key Elements of the Culture of Poverty:

1. Fatalism and Resignation: Individuals in poverty may develop a sense of fatalism,
believing that their circumstances are beyond their control and that their efforts will not
lead to significant change. This fatalistic outlook can lead to a lack of motivation to
strive for improvement.
2. Lack of Future Orientation: The theory suggests that the culture of poverty often leads
to a focus on immediate survival rather than long-term planning. This lack of future
orientation can inhibit investment in education, career advancement, and other activities
that might lead to upward mobility.
3. Sense of Helplessness: Due to the challenges and systemic barriers associated with
poverty, individuals might develop a sense of helplessness and a belief that their actions
cannot alter their circumstances. This can contribute to a lack of agency and initiative.
4. Strong Emphasis on Present Enjoyment: Poverty can result in a heightened focus on
immediate gratification, as individuals may feel that they deserve moments of pleasure
amidst challenging circumstances. This can lead to spending patterns that prioritize
short-term enjoyment over long-term stability.
5. Resistance to Authority and Formal Institutions: The theory suggests that individuals
in poverty might resist authority and formal institutions due to feelings of alienation and
mistrust. This can contribute to behaviors that are seen as deviant or non-conformist.

Culture of Poverty: The "Culture of Poverty" is a theory that suggests that people in
poverty share certain cultural norms, values, and behaviors that perpetuate their
disadvantaged status. This concept was popularized by sociologist Oscar Lewis in the
1960s. Lewis argued that individuals who grow up in poverty are exposed to a distinct
set of cultural traits, including fatalism, resignation, lack of future orientation, and a
sense of helplessness. These traits, according to the theory, are passed down from one
generation to another, creating a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape.

Critiques of the Culture of Poverty Theory: While the concept of the Culture of
Poverty has been influential, it has also faced significant criticism from various quarters:

1. Blaming the Victim: Critics argue that the theory tends to blame individuals living in
poverty for their circumstances, overlooking structural factors such as systemic
inequality, lack of access to quality education, healthcare, and job opportunities. This
blame can contribute to stigmatization and further marginalization.
2. Simplification: The theory oversimplifies the complex and varied experiences of
individuals living in poverty. It assumes a uniform culture and set of values among all
poor individuals, ignoring the diversity within impoverished communities.
3. Neglecting Structural Factors: The Culture of Poverty theory doesn't adequately
address systemic factors that contribute to poverty, such as economic policies,
 discrimination, and unequal distribution of resources. Focusing solely on cultural aspects
neglects the larger institutional and structural issues.
4. Lack of Empirical Evidence: Some researchers argue that the evidence for the Culture
of Poverty theory is weak and that it relies heavily on anecdotal observations. Studies
have shown that many individuals in poverty do exhibit behaviors that seem to align
with the theory, but these behaviors often stem from the necessity of surviving in
challenging conditions, rather than being intrinsic cultural traits.
5. Overlooking Resilience and Agency: Critics emphasize that individuals in poverty
often display remarkable resilience and agency in the face of adversity. The Culture of
Poverty theory tends to undermine these qualities by characterizing them as passive
victims of their circumstances.
6. Ignoring Historical Context: The theory neglects historical factors that have
contributed to the creation and perpetuation of poverty, such as colonialism, historical
injustices, and social policies.
7. Cultural Determinism: The theory assumes that culture is the primary determinant of
behavior, neglecting the influence of social and economic structures. It overlooks the
fact that culture is fluid and can change in response to changing circumstances.

In summary, the Culture of Poverty theory has faced criticism for its tendency to
oversimplify the complex dynamics of poverty and for potentially perpetuating harmful
stereotypes. Many scholars and researchers argue that a more holistic approach,
considering both cultural and structural factors, is needed to truly understand and
address the challenges of poverty.