ADVERTISEMENTS:
Introduction:
By no means is the concept of the social class the same as that of the ‘caste’ in India. The word ‘caste’ comes from the Portuguese ‘casta’ which stands for ‘breed’ or ‘kind’ and is synonymous with the Sanskrit jati or jat. Manu’s division of the Indian people into four principal varnas and an outcaste did not however at first come about as a categorization on the basis of superiority or inferiority of the individual or individuals concerned.
There are many conflicting theories and explanations as to the origins of such a system, the equivalent of which into too cannot be found in any other country. The concept of the birth of the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya and the Sudra from the Creator’s mouth, arms, thigh and feet respectively can have in its origin no justification other than that of the functional one.
The caste system as expounded by Manu in his writings is one of the oldest methods of division of labour made sacrosanct by the religious codes, so that any question of revolt against the system by the simple, god-fearing populace was virtually ruled out. The Brahmin was given the functions of worship and education, the Kshatriya was in charge of administration and the martial arts, the Vaisya tilled the land and the Sudra was the menial who would serve the other three high castes.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Some historians have suggested that when the Aryans became the ruling class in India and the local Dravidians became the serfs, the fair-skinned ruler assumed superiority over the dark-skinned natives, and that itself gave rise to the idea of the fair-complexioned person belonging to the higher status.
The proponents of this theory refer to the use of the word Varna for the caste, and Varna in one of its meanings stands for ‘complexion’. Closely connected with this theory of the origin of the caste is another which suggests that the superior looking Aryans wished to keep themselves pure in blood and free of intermixing with the inferior Dravidians and, as such, devised rules which prevented any kind of communications between the races.
Worship of different gods and goddesses merely accentuated these differences and the cleavage easily became prominent. That could have been the beginning of the process which divided the Indian community into different closed groups known as ‘Castes’.
The historian R.C. Mazumdar holds that castes are closed groups in which hereditary transmission of one’s own group status is transmitted; and as McIver points out, it is practically impossible for a person of a caste to change over to another. Keeping this idea of the caste in mind, McIver ventures to say that in the U.S. the coloured population is none other than an ‘ethnic caste’, since mobility from one ethnic caste to another is not the accepted rule. J.H. Hutton in his Caste in India states that the caste system points out the cultural differences between the Aryans and the local inhabitants and, when the Aryans set about the task of rebuilding the Indian society along the lines of their own culture, the system emerged canalizing into it almost every item of daily life for providing stability to the community that was then comprised of several diverse types.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Hutton believes that the caste system is distinctly a feature of the Aryan civilization in India and, according to him, occupation was controlled by caste. A change of occupation involved a change of status which would call for ex-communication or the setting up of a new caste.
The caste system as it is found only in India has endured for several centuries, according to Hutton, for several reasons, the ‘peniusular nature’ of the geographical location of the country being one of the most important. India is bound on three sides by the ocean and in the north by the great Himalayas.
It was virtually impregnable except through the mountain passes; and hence the influences from the outside world did not come to disturb the stability of the system at least until the impact of industrialization was felt by the Indians. Secondly, as the caste system came into being with the invasion of the Aryans, it continued to exist for the same reason of warding off the ‘danger of inter-mixing’ with foreigners, who came one after another in successive waves into the main stream of the Indian community.
In fact, restrictions as to the taking of food and inter-marrying became even more rigid with the coming of the Muslim and then of the European conquerors, each with a different religion; and the local Hindu raised the walls of caste barriers in an attempt to save himself from defilement by the mleccha, the member of a foreign religion. Whatever the history of the system might be, the caste division in society sooner or later got intertwined with conceptions of religiosity.
Religion sanctioned the caste system and the religious teachings even went to the extent of suggesting that casteism was ‘interrelated’ with Karma, the performance of one’s own obligations. If a person does his social duties well, no matter what his position may be, he would, in his next life, be born as a member of the highest caste, the Brahmin, who was by reason of the purity of his status immune from the law.
Since the caste system clearly demarcated the lines of occupations, it served the purpose of barring education to all; and in an atmosphere in which learning and education could simply not be diffused ignorance and superstitious beliefs pervaded the minds of men who readily believed every word that the learned Brahmin spoke.
It was, therefore, unimaginable for the low caste to ever strive for a change of status, for that would invite for him divine displeasure. Calmly, and with an unquestioning attitude, the Hindu accepted his hereditary occupation and his social status and, in doing his duties, he had the satisfaction of gratifying society and fullfilling the designs of his Creator.
Nowhere in the world, not even among the Communists, may one dare to say, that such a compact system of division of labour ever existed at the behest of the administration, and no other social dogma was ever held to be so sacred.
According to Hutton, the caste system rests upon certain features which can be described as its characteristics. Among these, the very first feature that one takes note of is the principle of ‘hereditary acquisition’ of caste. It is true that a member of a caste cannot change over to another; but the more important matter about the system is that a person has not to qualify for a caste by actively doing something as in the cases of different occupation which require that only a licentiate can become a member of the guild.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Birth is the all-important factor in the caste system and, once born into a caste, a person is not likely to lose its membership at any point in his life, unless he is punished for a base act. Secondly, the very system is based on the principle of ‘pre-determined distribution of jobs and functions’.
Even before a child is born into a family, it is known by its members that every newcomer will embrace the family tradition and take up the occupation assigned to it by its caste. The Brahmin’s son must pursue literary activities, while the younger Kshatriya must learn from his elder primarily the arts of warfare. How near the concept comes to the class of warriors as envisaged by plato in his Republic!
The question of social mobility was not only not entertained, but completely unheard of. Thirdly, ‘marriages had to be endogamous’ along caste lines, although, within the caste itself, one could not marry into the same gotra, or the clan-line.
Hutton observes that if a person belonging to a particular caste ever married into another, he would either be excommunicated or driven to forming another group, that is, a sub-caste. There are several sub-castes at present in India, and these could have been formed in that manner.
The fourth feature of the caste system shows that what began as mere division of labour permeated the different niches of society with such an impact that ‘cultural differences between the castes’ became a distinct tradition. In order to maintain the purity of each of the castes, certain taboos were imposed and the individuals’ mentality spontaneously responded to the various demands.
That even the partaking of foodstuff of certain types was a matter determined by one’s caste seemed only natural to him, and there was no deliberate and calculated insult in one’s refusal to sit and share a meal with a member of a different caste. An instinct-like understanding told him that a man of a superior caste was not permitted by God himself to take the food offered by him. Not that he could not invite a superior to a feast at his place on an occasion unless he was a Sudra.
There were detailed rules as to the type of the cook who would be engaged in cooking, and the manner of cooking itself if meals were to be prepared for a Brahmin or a Kshatriya. No special regulations applied when the man of inferior caste was called to a feast; but the untensils to be used for entertaining such a person must be of a distinct set to be washed by a low-caste servant. The same rule applied when non-Hindus were to be entertained.
The practice of ‘untouchability’ was one of the features of the rigid caste system that applied in the ancient and mediaeval India. It was a practice prevalent only tills the other day, but the Government of free India has prescribed it and made any expression of its acceptance a criminal offence. ‘Untouchables’ were persons who fell well below the hierarchical pattern of social status that the caste members enjoyed.
They remained on the outskirts of the social organization and were subjected to any kind of inhuman treatment that may be imagined. The questions of intermarriage and feasting together were preposterous matters; they were denied entry into temples, their gods were to be different from those of the caste Hindu, and they could not draw water from a village tank or a well, for their mere touch would defile the water and make it impure.
Shadows cast by them as they walked by were impure and the mere contact with the shadow would require the Brahmin to go through purification ceremonies. A common mode of purification is the taking of the panchgavya, the mixture of milk, ghee, curd, and urine and dung of the cow. Penalties imposed upon the untouchable for any violation of any social norm, wilful or otherwise, were severe, and the victim could even be burnt alive for his audacity.
Mahatma Gandhi took up their cause in the twentieth century, preceded by a number of persons like Swami Vivekananda, and a movement on a large scale launched by him went to a considerable extent in awakening the new Indian consciousness to the heartlessness and indignity of such a system; and the Government of India today, wedded to the principles of the Mahatma in relation to Harijans, as he called them, is determined to weed out this practice from the fabric of Indian society.
But sentiment is rigid and it is a well-known adage that a horse can be taken to water, but it cannot be made to drink. Liberal and large-hearted education can complete the process begun by the law.
The Caste and the Class:
In India, the caste system did not admit of any other social classification and if, in the Indian context, one had to think in terms of the social class, it was none other than the caste. In certain countries, the qualities of the Indian caste system have been reflected to some extent, as we see in the ethnic division in the American society.
In the U.S., the practice of debarring the coloured man from entry into places haunted by the Whites savours of untouchability on a limited scale and in this case, too, birth determines the issue. Yet the concept of the ‘social class’ is different from that of the ‘caste’ and, except where we make certain comparisons in order to discover analogous practices, one may clearly notice the following points of difference between the two ideas :
(1) A social class may have some intimate relations with the principles of ‘hereditary acquisition of status’, but such principles are not all important in it. A caste is determined by birth and the caste system makes no room for any change of caste- status. A member of a social class, however, may be born into the status enjoyed by his parents but he may, with the exercise of his personal skill and with industry, change his class.
Born in a family of modest means, the ambitious son can still look forward to building up a lofty career, and many a great man affords us living examples of these happenings. We have no instance of a Sudra or a Vaisya being promoted to the higher caste because he has been noble in life; his reward, if any, should come in his next birth.
(2) Quite evidently, therefore, ‘social mobility’ is inadmissible as a concept under the caste system. The social class is based on the very possibility of mobility, for the class itself is a creation of process in which certain groups automatically form in society in relation to occupations and their corresponding social prestige.
Unless the society is totally feudalistic in character, social mobility is of a high degree; and when wealth determines the class, the acquisition or the loss of it is a dynamic factor that shapes the composition of a social class. The class, therefore, is more democratic in its functions than the caste for any position in the classification is open to talent.
(3) ‘Principles of marriage’ in a caste are much more rigid than those observed by any social class. A social class may be based on high or low birth, high or low accumulation of wealth, or on other factors upon which the society imposes high value or a derogated one.
While caste marriages are endogamous with the exception that a marriage in the same gotra is prohibited, the class marriages are happy unions if equality can be maintained; but a connection with a higher or a lower class is never ruled out. Usually, the parents covet their daughter’s union with a man of a higher class and despise the idea of the son marrying into a family having a lower status.
(4) Since mobility is a thought that is foreign to the caste structures, the members of different castes do not consider it fruitful to engage in ‘hostilities’ along caste lines, they generally learn to co-exist peacefully with each other. The social classes do not exist with any objective social sanction; they are a product of a subjective feeling of their respective members, their class consciousness.
This consciousness brings to the mentality of members of different classes shades of superiority or inferiority complexes. That again leads to class conflicts and the tolls of these differences may be heavier than what is created by the caste system. True it is that the untouchables were tormented by the caste Hindus in every imaginable manner; but no Kshatriya would ever fight a Brahmin only because the latter enjoyed a higher status than that of the former.
The social distance between the different castes was marked but, strikingly enough, the rigidity of the structure would not usually spark off class warfare. The stratification of society into classes on whatever basis it be is fraught with the peril of the different classes indulging in bitter class warfare; and now that modern society has taken upon itself the garb of calculated polished behaviour, the techniques used in class battles are vicious and capable of planned annihilation of the despised class.
Casteism in Modern India:
Today, in India, the caste structure has undergone a revolutionary change. Untouchability is an offence, punishable with imprisonment. Article 17 of the Indian Constitution has abolished it as a practice and has forbidden its adoption in any form. Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings and the experiences of the father of our constitution.
Dr. Ambedkar, have helped the country in realizing the mischief and the human indignity inherent in the practice, and the Mahatma’s labelling of the down castes as Harijans has perhaps allowed the socially conscious to accept them in the name of Hari, the Lord Vishnu.
The Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act of 1950 gives us a list of castes and tribes that are to be regarded as backward and handicapped, and it is constitionally incumbent upon the Government to help these people with preferential treatment in a number of matters.
Article 15 of the Constitution throws open shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of justice, entertainment, wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort for the use of all; but the State is further authorized to make special provisions for women and children, and for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes and the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
Accordingly, in a number of cases of public employments and competitive appointments, as well as in election matters, some positions are reserved for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with a view to bringing them up gradually to existing social levels and to affect their integration with the others.
Under Schedule V to the Constitution, a Tribes Advisory Council has been set up in respect of tribes in Assam, Meghalaya and other adjoining areas; and the Council is expected to advise the Governor as to matters relating to the advancement and welfare of the Scheduled Tribes.
Yet the actual picture is not as rosy as the law would make it appear. The Janata Party election manifesto gave special assurance to the backward classes and the minorities and promised a new deal for Scheduled Castes and tribes with a special machinery to guarantee their rights and interest. Bihar alone had violent incidents in 1978 for several months at several places in the State only because the Government of the State accounted a 25% reservation in public appointments for Harijans and like-backward communities.
The sentiments expressed by the caste Hindu were so intense that, in by-elections, the ruling party had to lose a number of votes from its ballot tally. A sympathetic Janata administration at the Centre could not avert atrocities against Scheduled Castes at Belchi in Bihar and in Bajitpur and the Marathwada villages in Maharastra in 1977 and 1978.
In the year ending 31st March, 1978 not less than 174 persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes lost their lives in Uttar Pradesh and at least 5,755 incidents involving violence coupled with arson or looting of the hutments and properties of Harijans were registered. During the same period, Madhya Pradesh registered 63 cases of murder of Harijans and 3,798 cases of violence.
Rajasthan came next with 27 murders and 435 violent incidents (refer to Illustrated Weekly of India, March 18-24, 1979). One may say that the battle is still on, and an evil practice that is several centuries old will take the toll of some, and perhaps some costly lives, before it wears out completely. The picture under the present Congress (I) Government is no better.
As regards the other facets of the caste system, considerable modification of attitudes has been achieved. The Hindu Marriages Act 1955 no longer prohibits the Hindu ceremonial marriage rites to any union of a Hindu male and a Hindu female, except when they stand in prohibited degrees of relationship.
The legal implication of this statement is that no longer is it the official rule that a Brahmin cannot marry a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya marry a Brahmin. All philanthropic and cultural institutions along with the educational ones have raised loud voices in favour of inter-caste marriage so that a system that has outlived its purpose can die a natural death.
Our contemporary literature, the cine-art and the stage have all combined in their efforts at jettisoning this evil system that still embarrasses India in her onward journey. Several factors have helped in India’s re-awakening to a consciousness that the principle of humanity stands above all and that the caste structure is an impediment in her task of rebuilding society. Some of these factors can be taken for consideration.
First, ‘liberal education’ introduced into the country’s system by the British has helped the growth of a consciousness that humanism, human rights and liberty stand above all, and these have to be protected. The use of English as the medium of instruction, though forced upon the Indian community by the foreign rulers, had the salutary effect that was historically novel and unthought of of before.
This, in turn, created a sentiment of nationalism among Indians, a sentiment that in later times caused an upsurge that culminated in the departure of the foreign rulers from the country. However, the rulers have left back in the country their educational system and their human values which are not markedly different from ancient Indian values; but India experienced a re-awakening of the conscience under the British.
Secondly, the ‘influence of industrialism’ has gradually been felt in the country and today, towards the beginning of the ninth decade of this century, even distant villages have in some way or the other felt the impact of the process of industrialization. Industrial occupation requires that men from different ranks and different castes join together in their efforts at industrial achievements. Factories, mills and offices are agog with activity, and, in the midst of all this, the fellows at work consider it mediaevalistic to go into the question of one’s caste or tribe.
In other words, the shift of emphasis from the agricultural to the industrial way of life has introduced an element of liberal and large-hearted social consciousness in modern man’s living and he spontaneously treads upon the antiquated caste system. If public life demands that the colleague working near one’s elbow be accepted with humanistic fraternity, this particular attitude will be extended to family life too.
Tolerance and acceptance of the stranger are the hallmarks of contemporary ways of Indian life, and the caste system is being felt as unnecessary in an increasing degree. With women out in the area of industrial occupations and avocations, the barriers that still remain are fast breaking down.
Thirdly, the ‘mode of classification in society’ has undergone a radical change. Feudalistic classification of society into the royalty, nobility and the common stock has only lately been abolished, Mrs. Gandhi’s administration dealing the final blow on the privileges and the status of the Indian princes.
All are invited to the new classification according to wealth and in the competition for its acquisition; nobody gets any preference as an aristocrat, and nobody is debarred as a commoner. Plutocracy has virtually replaced aristocracy and in the rules of its game the caste system is a degrading superfluity.
The caste system gave not only status but opportunities and privileges to the high-born. Occupations are now no longer caste- based and the division of different jobs and occupations has clearly cut across caste lines. A high-born may be very ill-placed in society and the new standards of status as determined by wealth will place him lower in the rung than, perhaps, the man of low caste who has a room at the top with his wealth.
With this change of emphasis, the Indian caste system is gradually being replaced by the system of social classification as prevails in Western countries. The process of transformation is not yet complete, but it must be accepted in all fairness that the transition stage has arrived.
Fourthly, ‘communication facilities’ have been improved in the country in the] present century and, as a result, the distance between cities, towns and villages has been vastly reduced. Our urban centres are a major revolt against the old caste system, while the villages remained conservative for a long time.
The impact of a better transport system no longer allows the villager to remain aloof from urban ways and ideas and even the rustic has learnt to doubt the utility of the caste system. Moreover, means of transport like the train, the bus or the airplane cannot provide for distinctions between castes, and a levelling effect has been brought into the society.
It is absurd for any transport authority to reserve berths for Brahmins to the exclusion of the Sudras. During travel, too, one must of necessity take his meals without questioning the propriety of doing so in the company low-caste persons.
Finally, India as a nation is rising to a ‘political consciousness’ in the line of the democratic set-up that its people have adopted after independence. Even when the British were here, the demands of the national movement for freedom made no room for caste distinctions, for the battle for liberty required that every Indian fought by the side of his fellowmen.
There was in fact no time to raise doubts about the caste or the creed of the freedom fighter, for every such act was fraught with the danger of bringing division in the fighting rank. Poets and leaders sang in terms of equality of men and. against the common evil of foreign rule, all responded. Today, the consciousness is enlarged against the backdrop of increased responsibility of every citizen to select an able government.
The right to elect one’s representative is constitutional and one has to be alert in excising the right lest his very liberty be imperilled. In the recent years, every Indian has learnt this lesson by paying a dear price and the concept that liberty and equality are ideas that must together be upheld has gained ground. In this context, the caste structure is increasingly appearing as a hindrance rather than a help in the political structure of the country.
One would, however, be guilty of misrepresentation of facts if one did not even casually admit that in certain parts of the country, political activity too is based on caste lines rather than or party lines. These truths become clear to the understanding when one carefully considers the reasons behind the selection of candidates for certain constituencies.
The voting pattern also helps at times to acknowledge the fact that in some parts of the country the caste considerations still exist in a strong measure. But it would be wrong to overemphasize the fact and regard it as a trend setter. The trend is, in fact, to the contrary; there is at least among the younger generation an acceptance of the fact that, in the arena of politics, political considerations should subordinate all other factors and that democratic principles know only one measuring rod, and that is, personal talent.
However, there are stresses and strains upon the body politic of India and there are cases of unscrupulous politicians raising the bogey of caste or creed to suit their peculiar interests. In the midst of all this, the nation is slowly advancing towards its goal of restructuring society, not along antiquated lines that suited race conflicts, but according to the demands of modernity.
An Evaluation of Casteism:
A system that was primarily aimed at regulating the occupation and at effecting a specialization through division of labour could not have existed for millennial times had it not possed some grains of utility and productivity for the society.
With the Aryan and the non-Aryan races vying for superiority, the system brought a stabilizing effect upon society by drawing lines of occupation clearly and it disciplined the, by and large, docile Indian community. As it is, Indians have an innate tendency towards religiosity and, even in the practice of various weird rituals; he finds the pleasure of the thought that he has pleased heaven.
The caste system came to regulate his behaviour along religious lines and infused a sense of discipline in his everyday conduct. This discipline was spontaneous and not the imbued one that modern education has filled us with. There was a general faith in the system and the acceptance of it had no backing of compulsion in it. Surely, when the mind readily takes up a practice, it becomes the culture of the community.
The caste structure evolved with the passage of time as the distinct culture of the Indian Hindu who used it as a bulwark against many an aggressor and yet remained firm. In a country that accommodated at one time a motley of races and cultures, the Hindu continued undisturbed with his faith and tradition with the firm bonds of his caste system.
The much condemned system is yet not without equally nefarious parallels in the world. The ethnic division in the American community is only a variation of the Hindu orthodox behaviour. Besides that, the Hebrew sentiment of being a superior race is perhaps a distant echo of Brahminism in our country.
Twentieth century liberal thinking has not failed to recognize the valid points of the otherwise rejected caste structure. Economists find it intriguing that millions of people should for long centuries almost instinctively subject themselves to the very mechanical allocation of occupations that the caste system necessarily effects; and they realize that the turmoil that is necessarily associated with a scramble for occupations is non-existent in the Hindu caste-based society.
Generation after generation, people calmly followed their ansestor’s profession and none questioned the propriety of hereditary principles coming into play in the matter. In fact, the thought that one was upholding a family tradition elevated his conscious-nous and the community as a whole found several groups that remained solid in the maintenance of their respective heritage.
Anthropologists and bio-scientists too have advanced a theory that endoganny as a principle, when followed rigidly, can help maintain the purity of the races; hybrid classes are believed to be more susceptible to maladjustments and psychological tensions than the so-called ‘pure’ one. Therefore, some argue that the caste system was not based on superstititious conceptions only; it was well planned for the integrity and the advancement of the community as it then existed.
It may therefore be questioned as to why casteism fell into disrepute when it was serving several purposes in the society. We have already discussed the factors that brought about the changes as regards the system in modern India. Those factors can be described as the external factors’ which helped in displacing it from its social context; there are ‘internal factors’ too which have weakened the practice from its inside.
First of all, any system that builds an environment of superiority for some and ensures a traditional lower status for others is bound to create a psychological complex which will generate bitter hatred between the groups. The higher classes enjoy status and privileges and the most outrageous factor about it is that even an undeserving member of the class shall not be in any peril whatsoever of losing his status.
The system would therefore not only discourage merit based on skill and labour but in fact, confound and vanquish it. No anthropolologist would ever venture to say that skill can never be generated among lower caste people, and a person so born would naturally find that he is checked and cribbed by a system that exhibits mediocre with a flourish and discards a gem as mere paste.
These feelings I can strike at the roots of every system whether it be caste-ridden or confounded b% other standards effecting the cleavage. Absence of social mobility is a distinct disadvantage of this system and, in the modern world no nation can stand to compete in economic, political as well as cultural fields of activity if it does not provide for a scheme of acceptance on the basis of talent and merit. Besides that, the ‘ system had a built-in element of insecurity even as it provided for the practice of untouchability.
Classes are always expected to exist in any society, and discrimination and prejudice are merely incidental to any class structure; no country that flaunts a I perfect civilization in the world can even boast of a social structure which has not learnt to divide and discriminate. The Indian caste system would then be no striking exception to social behaviour among mankind, but for the fact that it had an abominable appendage to the organization of its social structure in legalizing and I loudly advocating a case for untouchability.
If the caste system is guilty of any distinct sin, it is that of rearing a band of human beings with the degenerative consciousness of being untouchables. Modern Indian intellect is therefore burdened with a sense of contrition over the matter, and passions overwhelmingly carry us to a position of hostility towards any compromise, and the entire caste structure has been placed in the docks.
Social Mobility:
Social stratification is based on a definitive ability on the part of a person to acquire a status that is earmarked for a profession or occupation. In a way, any division into classes or strata in society may prove to be very conducive to the exploitation of individual skill. The deserving one will aspire for the highest position and endeavour to give of the best of himself and the deficient will make efforts that will ensure the continued membership of his own group.
When the social classes are based less on conditions of birth and more on propositions of merit and talents, the possibility of individuals, families or groups moving from one stratum to another will remain distinct. This very movement is the idea of social nobility’. If, however, any society affords discriminatory opportunities of education and occupation to different constituents in it, if evaluation is made on propositions of heredity and not according to the yardstick of personal talent or competitive economic pursuits, there will be no scope for moving from one condition in the social structure to another.
Life will remain static, while dynamism is a natural corollary of any organism growth and human society cannot be any exception to the rule. Social mobility is closely related to the degree of dynamism that the society in willing to accommodate; and such dynamism may be guided by factors such as personal talent, economic opportunities and restrictions relating to marriages.
It can hardly be an effective generalization when we try to brand all people with an upward movement as talented and hardworking, and all unfit and slothful persons must necessarily have a downward tendency. Mobility depends on personal as well as other factors, and opportunities for improvement will not be a factor of the least importance.
It has been noted by sociologists that the nature of distance that stratification creates is not physical in nature; it is neither a geometric concept. Two persons may be very close to each other in the measure of geometric distance, but they may belong to two different strata in society.
Similarly, even if persons of the same status inhabit distant places, their social distance is nil. The concept of mobility follows other laws. When members of the upper class fail to maintain their standards, some others from the lower strata may come up to fill in the void, and the mobility that is caused is known as Reproductive mobility’.
‘Individual mobility’ is a condition which allows a particular individual of a family to slide up and down the scale of social estimation without much disturbing the respective family structures. A man of modest standing may reman modest, but his son may distinctively shoot up in social status and enjoy high prestige.
At times, when certain immigrants rush into a country and accommodate themselves to a lowly status, the native population is elevated a step or two in the social structure; and this has been described as ‘migratory mobility’.
When the occupational structure of the population changes some people from one level to another, as in the case of an agriculturist’s son in a developing country acquiring a status by taking up an industrial occupation, a ‘technological mobility’ occurs. J.A. Kahl has stated in his American Class Structure’ that from 1920 to 1950 about 67% of the labour force have changed over in occupation, that is, 67% of the sons have not taken up the respective occupations of their respective fathers.
Out of those who were found to be mobile, 43% went up the ladder with the help of technological mobility; individual mobility helped another 43%, while 13% took advantage of reproductive mobility and 1% gained from migratory mobility.
Mobility has also been described as ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’. Horizontal mobility means that a person has changed his position without necessarily changing his rank. A person may change his job or even his career in his life time but such a change may not necessarily lead to a change in his rank. An executive of a commercial concern may change over to a near similar position in another establishment without, at the same time, making it possible for his transfer from one social class to another.
On the other hand, vertical mobility involves the uplift of a person from one social stratum to a higher one, or even his fall from a higher segment to a lower segment of his society. Vertical mobility can affect merely the individual or even his group as such. The son of a school master may gain such educational and occupational distinction that he is accommodated in a higher class while his parents remain in an unchanged status; and a young industrialist may attain such property that his entire clan may experience an uplift.
A parallel course of events may be traced even when movement is downwards. It has been submitted by sociologists that the upward tendency is more characteristic of a society that is accommodative of social mobility than the downward one, since natural human mentality is to save oneself from precipitations.
Barring handicaps and social restrictions, instinctive behaviour of every individual is to look for a room at the top; and that society functions democratically which affords equal opportunities of promotion and privilege and thereby helps vertical mobility. It may also be noted that if social values are directed towards according due honour according to merit, the society as a whole, and not merely the honoured individual, benefits from the practice.
The prospect of vertical mobility helps the competitive spirit in man, too; and the absence of the prospect may dull initiative and create a claustrophobic atmosphere for the talented individual who would consequently expose himself to the complexities of neurosis. Mediocrity wasted over neurotic conditions is no doubt a sad thing; but talent wasted in psychological disorder augurs a social decay, particularly when the social structure has been the cause of individual bane.
Mobility is an important feature of stratification though it is also antithetical to it; while inequality is determined by the strata in society, mobility destroys it. Stable democracies have high rates of vertical mobility and politically authoritarian states do not afford sufficient scope for upward or downward movements.
The United States, Sweden and the Netherlands have a very high rate of mobility, though it would be wrong to say that there are societies without any trace of mobility. Vertical mobility, whether of the political, economic or the occupational type, exists in some degree or the other in every society.
However, at the same time, it would be necessary to accept the fact that no society exists in which no obstruction or hindrance is placed upon mobility. Social heritage and traditions are different in different countries and such difference is likely to affect the degrees of mobility. For instance, in India, the processes of industrialization have certainly broken down feudalistic barriers; yet the existing tradition of caste status has impeded the progress and it is only in the recent decades that hereditary status has crumbled before the acquired one.
Sociologists have discussed the different factors that cause social mobility as also the standards that make mobility easier (refer to T.S.21a) and a matter within the] reach of the individual. Reproductive mobility and individual mobility account for most of the cases of elevation of status. It has been noticed that higher classes have relatively small families; and sooner or later, persons of lower status are called upon to take up high positions in the society for which not many higher class aspirants are available.
In colonial administrations, the native population has experienced a raise in status as a result of the departure of the foreign ruling class from the country. Individual mobility is also very important in matters of social movements and it has already been discussed how individual efforts can win a person the reward of a higher status than the one offered to him by his birth.
In fact, society sets such high standards for the incumbents of certain positions that certain norms of behaviour become the ideal for the populace, and persons of lower standing try to emulate such behaviour with a view to bringing credit to their own status. In this way, the middle class emulate the rich in ways of living, speech, mannerisms and fashions; and the lower] classes adopt the middle class as the closer ideal than the very affluent.
Several modes of collective behaviour are very helpful in promoting mobility even in a society that is rudely disposed against any tilting of the existing structural] balance. First of all, the educational institutions act as a great social leveller. If the society adopts an educational policy of allowing equal opportunities to all children irrespective of their social standing, intermixing will first strike at the roots of status consciousness and the young graduates will learn to face the adult world with uniform equipments.
A very similar purpose will be served by the military training institutes. Though in Britain a convention stood for a long time that none from modest standing in life would ever be ranked high in the navy, the Armed service are an institution m which a person’s social standing is as inconsequential as the dregs at the bottom of a teacup.
Cultural and economic institutions of modern times have given a further impetus] to the process of social movement. Religious institutions like the Church have with their teachings and practice acted as levellers in society; and whatever charter human rights may be politically adopted these days, the very Catholic influence Christian teachings have been their direct inspiration.
All religious institutions teach the brotherhood of man, but the Christian Church has played the role of the doyen among them in secularizing human attitudes and conducts. Economic institutions in the present industrial set-up aim at competition and consumer satisfaction; and in; capitalistic society, the capitalist’s prosperity depends upon the increased spending propensity of the consumer.
The more the consumer spends for his comforts, their higher is the status that he acquires; and overall prosperity is enjoyed by the capitalistic community. The mechanism of an industrialized community highlight only marketable goods, and human talents are considered to be immensely more marketable than his social standing. Gradually and perceptibly, the factor of social status is becoming an increasingly uneconomical proposition and mobility in modern industrialized society has been placed in a continuous state of flux.
Prejudices in a Stratified Society:
When people know that they belong to certain groups and a few others belong to other groups, the ‘in-feeling’ that they naturally nurture make them quite averse or hostile to the latter. This is the very basis of prejudices on a social level, and individual prejudices, too, are reared along similar psychological lines. ‘Prejudice’ is a view that a person takes of another without having any regard to experiences or reasoning’s.
It is a predisposition and if one is questioned why he holds animosity in his mind towards another it would be found that not only there is no rational basis for adopting such an attitude, but the person so prejudiced very much likes to hold on to his notions. Perhaps at the basis of a prejudice there is a firm dislike for the ways of life of the other man, but the values of differing codes are not understood at an early age in life. Nobody is born with a prejudice.
In the American Journal of Psychology (1946), Allport and Kramer observe that there is no prejudice in the child, and before he joins a school he cannot think of any group against whom he would be distinctly disposed. Prejudice is an acquired characteristic in one’s mentality; it is taught by his group or community.
As he grows up, he knows the points of superiority of his community over the other group, and equally well does he come to estimate the degree of hatred that his own kind may be subjected to by any superior class. The White learns to hate the ‘Nigger’ in the United States just as a caste-Hindu condemns the untouchable, or as Hindus and Muslims hold a strange dislike for each other.
Particularly when ethnic or religious differences become glaring indicators of cultural differences, and when people become conscious of the extent to which such difference become irreconcilable, hostilities become pronounced. The very fact that a community flings a nickname upon strangers can arouse sentiments to a violent degree and, at times, it is done sneeringly to show one’s disapproval of the other’s good qualities that he finds unbearable for him.
McIver and Page hold that prejudices as a universal social factor can be broadly of two types. First, there is the prejudice that comes as a mode of conformity to one’s own ways. Every man desires a uniformity of pattern of behaviour with his fellowmen, and he knows that if he deviates from accepted standards and shows his toleration for others when it is socially unwarranted, such course of liberal action is fraught with the peril of social damnation.
In fact, one must be brave enough to show that he is willing to rise above prejudices. Secondly, prejudices may also be a manifestation of a disturbance in the psychological complex of an individual. When an individual finds that he has remained deficient in personality standards in the context of his group, he may channelize his frustrations in an unduly high measure of aggression and almost sadistically he holds persons of other groups as despicable creatures.
Allport and Kramer hold that quite a number of persons who advocate race hatred of the bitterest kind, like Hitler holding Jews as abominable creatures, are individuals with a maladjusted personality. These persons divert attention of others of his group from their own deficient abilities to ‘inferior’ groups who become the natural targets of hostile compulsions.
One may add to McIver’s observation by stating that, like the frustrated individual, disheartened political interests may also encourage sadistic ruthlessness along lines of national, ethnic or religious prejudices in order to gain some footing on the political scene. In India, we know that certain parochial interests are raising their ugly heads in a desperate bid to capture sizeble chunks of the ballot tallies.
If they succeed, it would be a sad day for the very integral existence of our country. If prejudices and discriminatory attitudes are allowed to persist, the consequences will cause alarm to any humanist and society is very likely to be irretrievably destabilized.
The administration in any country must take effective steps for promoting harmony among the different groups among citizens or subjects by removing all possible symptoms of discordant behaviour. Persisting prejudices generate a feeling of insecurity among people belonging to inferior groups. Prejudice as a type of human behaviour is a denial of human brotherhood and it is distinctly anti-religious in character.
It is so contrary to rational behaviour that no individual in his senses ever dreams of advertising his hostile disposition towards a group be it religious, ethnic or otherwise, unless passion sways his personality and spoils judgment. Prejudices tacitly approved by the administration have disturbing effects upon harmony in any community.
On the one hand, economic exploitation of the inferior group finds a justification; and a segment of the society remains backward and distressed. Economic privileges are all offered to the superior group, no pretext becoming necessary for keeping the underdogs at bay. On the other hand, the victimized group is made the ‘scapegoat’ whenever unpalatable events disturb peace in the community.
It is not uncommon practice to label despised elements as criminals and the mentality of the superior typifies them as deliquents, deviants or violators of every norm of social decency. Hitler’s treatment of the Jews in Germany is not too distant an instance of this practice.
Sociologists have now considered it necessary to go into the questions of discrimination and inter-group tensions; anthropologists and psychiatrists have joined their efforts even under the auspices of the U N E S C O to study the problems attaching to international tensions. In the United States, research work is mainly concentrated on the black-white relations and a school of thought has already come up with a theory that aggressive personalities are at the root of many troubles; these personalities look for a stereotyped deficiency in a group and excite popular feelings against it.
In India, the efforts made by the administration show their concern over matters of discordant relations between groups of Indian citizens; the formation of the Scheduled Castes Commission and the Minorities Commission are steps taken forward along these lines.