Index of Status Characteristics (ISC)

In collaboration with Marchia Meeker, Warner developed the Index of Status Characteristics (ISC) to determine the SES of individual families, when the sample size is large and EP cannot be used.

The Index is based on two propositions:

1. ‘that economic and other prestige factors are highly important and closely correlated with social class’; and
2. ‘that these social and economic factors, such as talent, income, and money, if their potentialities for rank are to be realised, must be translated into social class behaviour acceptable to the members of any given social level of the community’ (Warner, 1960: 39).

After carefully examining the correlation between several variables associated with SES, as indicated by EP, these authors finally settled for four variables, namely, Occupation, Source of Income, House Type and Dwelling Area. Each of the four status characteristics was rated on a seven-point scale—where 1 stood for the highest and 7 for the lowest.

The rating of the various variables was done in the following manner.

1. Occupation. It was seen as a two dimensional factor—each occupation can be further classified in terms of skill required for the job and the amount of prestige attached to it. Warner and Meeker identified seven categories of occupations and each was rated on the seven-point scale, as shown in Table 15.5. Table 15.5 Categories of Occupation and their Ratings 
2. Source of Income. Rather than the amount of income, these authors decided to use the source of income as a better indicator, because income could be correlated with type of occupation. The rating scale of 7 was as follows:
   1. Inherited Wealth
   2. Earned Wealth
   3. Profits and Fees
   4. Salary
   5. Wages
   6. Private Relief
   7. Public Relief and non-respectable Income
3. House Types. The authors employed two criteria for the placement of the house of the informant on the rating scale. These criteria were:
   1. Size and condition of the garden and lawn, extent to which the place was landscaped, placement of the house on the lot, and nearness to adjacent buildings.
   2. Degree of aesthetic appeal and architectural design.Based on these criteria, houses were classified as Excellent (1), Very Good (2), Good (3), Average (4), Fair (5), Poor (6) and Very Poor (7).
4. Dwelling Area. The same seven categories were used to rate the dwelling area.These four variables were given differential weightage. Occupation was considered the key variable and assigned the value of 4, Source of Income and House Type were each given the weightage of 3, and the Dwelling Area was given the value of 2 points. Thus, a person rated as 1 on all the four variables scored a total of 12 points, and a person rated as 7 on all the variables scored 84 points. Thus, all the respondents received ratings in the range of 12–84. This is shown in Table 15.6.

 

Table 15.6 Ranking of Respondents

 

Distributing the scores (range: 12—84), Warner and Meeker stratified the population into the following classes shown in Table 15.7.

 

Table 15.7 Stratification of the Population

Score-Range	Classes
12–17	Upper Class
18–22	Upper or Upper Middle
23–24	Indeterminate
25–33	Upper Middle Class
34–37	Indeterminate: Either the Upper Middle or Lower
	Middle Class
38–50	Lower Middle Class
51–53	Indeterminate: Either the Lower Middle or the
	Upper Lower Class
54–62	Upper Lower Class
63–66	Indeterminate1
67–68	Lower Lower with some possibility of Upper lower Class
70–84	Lower Lower Class

Using this technique, which is now being given up for more sophisticated methods, classes have also been identified in India. Many Indian scholars used class as a replacement for caste,³⁵ while several others used this as a category applicable even in the caste context. Such scholars have used caste also as a variable in determining the status of a family. While studying the 1967 General Elections in a constituency in Uttar Pradesh, Yogesh Atal developed the SES index based on three variables, namely Occupation, Education, and Caste—two achievement variables and one ascriptive criterion.

Both education and occupation were ranked as High, Medium, Low, and very Low, and accordingly given the weights of 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively. Since there were as many as 45 castes in the field of investigation, the technique of evaluative participation was employed by asking a number of knowledgeable people from the community to classify the various castes into four piles, high, medium, low and very low. As there was considerable ambiguity with regard to the Varna status, it was decided to have the four piles which might roughly indicate the status of the castes in question. A median value for each caste was computed, based on the placement of the caste in the pile by local experts. The 45 castes were then serially listed in descending order in terms of the median value and grouped into four piles.

Equal weightage was given to each of the three variables and a composite index was prepared. The weights given to the three variables and the score board are reproduced in Tables 15.8 and 15.9.³⁶

 

Table 15.8 Summary View of the Scale: Variables and Weights

 

Table 15.9 Possible Placement in Terms of Three Variables of the SES

 

This technique helped in grouping the sample into a few categories in terms of their socio-economic status. Such a grouping is helpful in analysing the responses of people, particularly in finding out any variations in the response pattern that can be attributed to SES. The respondents think of others only in terms of higher or lower than themselves, and have no clear-cut notion of a class. While caste as a group based on ascription is easily identifiable, not so the class. The latter is an analytical category, and broadly refers to the rich and the poor.

The important point is that people in the lower ranks emulate the behaviour of those above them, and aspire to climb up. This happens in all spheres, be it ritual or the economic, or the political. Srinivas noted the urge of the castes ranked lower on the ritual scale to adopt the ways of the upper castes by giving up non-vegetarianism and becoming teetotallers, and named the process Sanskritization. This was the trend in the 1920s and 1930s in India, when people also used the decennial census enumeration as a means to upgrade themselves by changing caste names to match the names of those upper castes with which they wished to associate.

Now, more than 60 years after independence, a trend is noticed where the very castes that were aspiring to climb the caste ladder are opting to reverse the process and claim a lower—even a depressed—status in order to take advantage of the special privileges offered by the government to those groups that were regarded as backward and needed help to ameliorate their situation. This process is named Reverse Sanskritization. It is important to note that in doing so, people are employing the name of the caste cluster—such as Gujar, Jat, etc., which are divided into several castes in different regions.

There is a growing recognition that economic backwardness and poverty are not the attributes of caste but of families. There exists the ‘creamy layer’ amongst the so-called ‘disadvantaged’ groups. And social activists and even the judiciary is suggesting that people who constitute the creamy layer amongst the groups in the two schedules and among those included in the OBC category should be denied the privileges associated with reservations. The concept of ‘creamy layer’ refers to SES—it acknowledges the existence of classes among the castes that were regarded as down trodden and included in the ‘Dalit’ category.

The technique developed by Warner was meant for the United States. In the present context, that technique appears somewhat dated and is no longer used. But efforts are made to evolve more sophisticated methods. In India, the concept of BPL (Below the Poverty Line) hints at the coexistence of both caste and class, since people belonging to the BPL category are found in all castes—ritually lower or higher.

It is the problem of poverty that is now engaging the attention of both policymakers and social analysts. This aspect of social stratification.