A culture consists of elements or traits, complexes, norms and institutions.
The smallest unit of culture is a Trait or an Element. It is a pattern of behaviour or a material product of such behaviour that is easily identifiable. Each item of the material culture, be it in the kitchen or the drawing room or the marketplace, is an element or trait of culture, not in terms of its physical attributes, but in terms of the behaviour pattern associated with it. A rolling pin—Belan—is used in India and in several Western bakeries. But the belan in Indian households has quite a different status than it does in the bakery. Indians associate it with the ‘wife’ because she is also the ‘chef’ in the household, and is used in many jokes related to husband-wife relationships where this rolling pin becomes the symbol of alleged husband bashing!
A network of closely connected traits/elements/patterns is called a ‘cultural complex’. A dance form is a good example. In this complex are involved many cultural elements such as dress, ornaments, music, musicians, musical instruments, stage, lighting, audience, and so on. It is in the totality of all this in a particular combination that dance becomes a cultural complex.
A higher level includes various norms, patterns and complexes, and is called an ‘institution’. A marriage is an institution in this sense. The institution of marriage varies from culture to culture in terms of the structure of cultural traits and complexes, and the norms and values associated with them. While marriage denotes a union of the male and the female for mating and parenting, the manner in which it is conducted differs from society to society. It is society’s norms that govern the choice of a mate—who can, and who cannot, marry; the timing of the ceremony, and everything that is done to effect a marriage.
The organization of components in a culture can be understood in terms of a hierarchy. Norms that are to be followed by all are called universals. These constitute the core of culture.
Options constitute Alternatives and are placed just outside the core. Thus, an Indian can either formally wear a suit with a tie, or a bandgala, or a shervani, or go in a Dhoti-Kurta—all these options are open. If, however, one of these becomes compulsory, it would enter the core and become a universal. For a long time, wearing a sari was the norm for an Indian woman—a universal—but now it has become an alternative as women all over the country make choices between a sari, a salwar-suit, or jeans and a shirt. From being a universal, sari has become one of the alternatives.
Then there are elements and complexes that are specific to certain statuses or subsystems. These are called specialties. The manner in which newly married women dress, with a profusion of jewellery, vermilion in their hair partings, bright bangles, etc., can be called an attribute of a bride—a specialty. These specialties are known to other members of the group, but they would not use them as they are not part of their pattern of behaviour. It is in this sense that we can identify the universal traits of all Indians irrespective of the region to which they belong, because they are the integrating elements of Indian society and culture. It is the regional specificities that distinguish them, for example the use of regional languages, regional cuisine, regional festivals, etc. It must also be said that efforts at fostering integration have universalized many regional traits. The common Indian cuisine of India has in its inventory Tandoori dishes from Punjab, the Idli-Dausa from the South, the Dhokla from Gujarat, and the Sandesh-Rasgolla from Bengal.
The cohesive strength of a society is in part a product of the relative proportion of universals to specialties. In any analysis of society and culture, it is absolutely essential, in the interest of clarity and accuracy, never to generalize from the norms of a subgroup to make statements about the society as a whole, unless it has been observed that the norms of the subgroup are also characteristic of the whole (Hoebel, 1958: 168).
At this point, it will also be appropriate to make a distinction between Ideal and Real Culture. Before the arrival of sociology and anthropology in India, most descriptions of Indian society were made by the so-called Indologists. These scholars did not make any distinction between Indian society and Hindu society. India was treated as a ‘caste’ society, and the system of caste was explained in terms of what an ancient sage, Manu, had written in the Manusmriti. Foreigners learning about Indian society through such writings contrasted their society as ‘class society’, and decried the caste system as bad and undesirable. Without going into the merits or demerits of the caste system at this juncture, what can be said is that old scriptures, particularly the Smritis, were written as prescriptive modules in the language of ‘should’ and ‘ought’, or in a proscriptive mode as ‘don‘ts’. As such, these commentaries and treatises are not ‘descriptions’ of the actually existing situation of olden times. They are the collected inventories of ‘desirables’; they read like a blueprint, as guidelines. In other words, they can at best be taken as depictions of an Ideal Culture. The extent to which the ideal was realized by Indian society at any particular point in time is a matter of speculation in the absence of good descriptive accounts of the life led by our ancestors. Some later-day scholars compared present-day societies against the Manu model to identify the differences. However, many of them made the mistake of taking the Ideal as the Real of the Past, and regarding the Present as a departure from the Past, denoting a change that has occurred in the interregnum, and not as a difference between the ideal and the real.
Historians feel that when proscriptions are offered, there might be a better chance of rightly assuming that the proscribed practice had prevailed once upon a time. ‘Do not eat meat’ or ‘practice vegetarianism’ can be an indication that people of that time were meateaters, and therefore, sermonized others into giving up these practices. But we can only guess at whether positive prescriptions were ever followed. Finally, it must be said that Indian society is not a synonym for Hindu society, and therefore what might be true of Hindu society would not be applicable to the other religious communities inhabiting India.
The difference between Ideal and Real culture can also be seen in another way. Field-workers have always found a difference between what people think they do, what they say they do, and what they actually do. Statements made by informants about any cultural pattern are generally closer to the ‘ideal’ and the ‘desirable’, and people depart from it in real life. We quote a passage from Bronislaw Malinowski, who worked among the Trobriand Islanders in the Pacific. Crime and Custom in Savage Society (1926), Malinowski gave an apt illustration of the views on clan incest:
If you were to inquire into the matter among the Trobrianders, you would find that … the natives show horror at the idea of violating the rules of exogamy and that they believe that sores, disease, and even death must follow clan incest. [But] from the point of view of the native libertine, survasova (the breach of exogamy) is indeed a specially interesting and spicy form of erotic experience. Most of my informants would not only admit but actually did boast about having committed this offense or that of adultery (kaylasi); and I have many concrete, well-attested cases on record (Malinowski, 1926: 79).
Indian children are similarly taught to respect elders and treat parents as demi-gods. When Indians are asked about this, they give the same standard reply. However, it is not a secret how often this norm is violated. Daily newspapers carry stories of ill-treatment meted out to senior citizens by their own progeny. They even take over the property of their parents once it is bestowed to them and turn the parents out to lead a life of destitution. Of course, this is an extreme case; but one can cite several instances of day-to-day interactions in which parents are humiliated. The difference between the ideal and the real is indeed real and noticeable.
Leave a Reply