Another ascriptive group, smaller than race and almost similar to ethnic group, and in many ways corresponding to the tribe, is Caste. In most sociology texts, Caste is contrasted with Class as a structural type and is defined in a tautological manner: ‘Class is an open Caste, Caste is a closed Class’. The point underlying this distinction is the fact that while in class membership remains fluid—people can move up or down—no such mobility is allowed in Caste.
Since there are no gatekeepers to maintain the boundaries of a class and no specific nomenclature exists for individual classes’,14 it is not easy to identify them. Of course, a child is born into the perceived class of its parents, but through his deeds, a person can move out—rise or fall, or even stay where one was born. And this status is determined at the level of the family. In the case of caste, such mobility is theoretically denied’,15 and the status is determined at the level of caste—a group consisting of families—and not at the level of family, as in class.
Class and caste are, thus, interrelated concepts. But for purposes of clarity, we shall deal with them separately. In doing so, we suggest that class is a category, while caste is a group in the sociological sense.
In sociological literature, caste is mostly treated as a cultural phenomenon exclusive to Hindu India. We take the position that for sociological analysis, caste should also be treated as a structural term, of which Hindu caste is one specific manifestation.16
This requires us to distinguish between tribe, caste, and class.
In our discussion on the concept of tribe, it was stated that there is a lack of consensus on the concept, because tribes throughout the world have undergone tremendous changes as a consequence of centuries of culture contacts, both within the region and with the colonialists from other continents. All tribes of today are not preliterate, nor are all followers of animism, nor are they at the same level of primitive economy or technological development. Small tribal groups living in their original habitat—the autochthones or the indigenes—continue to be an in-marrying group, that is, endogamous.
It is endogamy that makes a particular tribe similar to a caste, because it is endogamy that becomes the foundation for the ascriptive status—a status by birth. But what distinguishes a caste from a tribe is the fact that while the entire tribe functions as an endogamous group, a caste is a part of a system consisting of a number of similar such groups. In other words, the concept of caste has two components: (i) Caste as a Unit, and (ii) Caste as a System. Even in the Indian context, this distinction has not been followed by many. Rather than bothering about what constitutes a caste unit, most treatises on caste have focussed on inter-caste relations. The criticism of the Indian caste, for example, mostly rests on this premise. That is why, what is highlighted is ‘hierarchical arrangement’, and the practice of untouchability and oppression by the upper castes. In this process, many analysts and critics of caste ignore defining a caste unit, which is taken for granted.
Leave a Reply