1

Gireesh Chundakkadan
Research Scholar,
Dept. of Sociology,
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit,
Kalady, Ernakulam - 683 574
Kerala, India
[email protected]

Module I
Basic Concepts in Sociology
1.1. Society, Community, Association, Institution, Culture– meaning and
characteristics, Types of society– Hunting and Gathering, Pastoral,
Horticultural, Agrarian, Industrial.
Society

The term ‘society’ is the most fundamental one in Sociology.

The term society is derived from the Latin word ‘Socius’ which means companionship or
friendship.

Companionship means sociability.

In Sociology, the term society refers to complex pattern of the norms of interaction that arise
among the people.

People are valuable only as agencies of social relationships.

A society is intangible.

George Simmel has pointed out that sociability is the essence of Society.

It indicates that man always lives in the company of other people.

Aristotle said “man is a social animal”.

Man needs society for his living, working and enjoying life.

Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to continue.

Human life and society always go together.
Definitions

Mac Iver “Society is the web of social relationships”.

Morris Ginsberg “A society is a collection of individuals united by certain relations or mode of
behaviour which mark them off from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ
from them in behaviour”.

G. D. H. Cole “Society is the complex of organised associations and institutions with a
community”.

Prof. Giddings “Society is the union itself, the organisation, the sum of formal relations in which
associating individuals are bound together”.

Lapiere “the term Society refers not to group of people, but to the complex pattern of the norms
of interaction, that arise among and between them”.

F. H. Giddings “society is a number of like- minded individuals, who know and enjoy their like-
mindedness and are therefore able to work together for common ends”. He further said that
 2

“society is the union in itself, the organisation, the sum of formal relations in which associating
individuals are bound together. Society rests on consciousness of kind, this reciprocal
organization may be the ‘We feeling’ of cooly and propensity of W. I. Thomas”.

Mac Iver and Page “society is a system of usages and procedures, authority and mutual aid, of
many groupings and divisions, of controls of human behaviour and liberties”.

John F. Cuber “group of people who have lived together long enough to become organised and
to consider themselves and be considered as until more or less distinct from other human units”.

Reuter “just as life is not a thing but process of living, so society is not a thing but process of
associating”.

Leacock “society includes not only the political relations by which man rebound together but the
whole range of human relations and collective activities”.

According to Mac Iver and Page “Sociology is about social relationship and the network of
relationship we call society. Society is not confined to human being only; there are animal
societies of many degrees. The remarkable social organisation of the instincts, such as ant, the
bees and hornet are known to us. Ti has been contended that where is life, there is society”.

Talcott Parsons “total complex of human relationship in so far as they grow out of action in
terms of mean-end relationship, intrinsic or symbolic”.

C. H. Cooley “ society is a complex of forms or processes each of which is living and growing
by interaction with the others, the whole being so unified that what takes place in one part affect
all the rest”.

Leacock “society includes not only the political relations by which men are bound together but
the whole range of human relations and collective activities”.

Harkings “society is any permanent or continuing group of men, women and children, able to
carry on independently the process of racial perpetuation and maintenance of their own cultural
level”.

Prof. Wright “society is not a group of people, it is a system of relationships that exists between
individuals of the group”.

Green “a society is larger group to which any individual belong”.

Sunmer’s model of society is developmental.

Thus there are two types of the definitions of society, (1) the functional definition and (2) the
structural definition. From the functional point of view, society is defined as complex of groups
in reciprocal relationship, interacting up on one another, enabling human organisations to carry
on their life activities and helping each person to fulfil his wishes and accomplish his interest in
association with his fellows. From structural point of view society is the total social heritage of
folkways, mores and institutions; of habits, sentiments and ideals.

Thus society is to be interpreted in wider sense. It is both structural and functional organisation.
It consists in the mutual interactions of individuals but it is also structure formed by these
relations.

Herbert Spencer divided society (according to degree of structural complexity) into simple,
compound, doubly compound and trebly compound. He also classified societies (on the basis of
internal regulation) into militant and industrial societies.

Ferdinand Tonnies mentions two types of societies- Gemeinschaft (is based on the natural will of
the human beings relate to one another as total personalities within a communal context. It is
 3

called community) and Gesellschaft (social relations become narrow, specific and purposeful. It
is called society).

Emile Durkheim divided society into mechanical and organic.

Most sociologists agree that society has an existence of its own, apart from the people who
compose it.

As societies develop, statuses and roles, groups and organizations, institutions and communities
emerge.

These concepts are best thought of as part of society as a whole rather than as belonging to
particular people.

Individuals view these things as external to themselves and sometimes as coercive in the sense
that they compel us to modify our behaviour in various ways.

These emergent concepts are collectively referred to in Sociology as social structure.

The term structure refers to the ways that the part of a whole are related to one another.

Social structure then refers to the ways in which various parts are organised and follow stable
patterns of collective rules, roles and activities.

Hunting and food gathering was the first stage of human society.

Stage of hunting and food gathering existed 36000 years ago.

Characteristic features of Society

1. Society involves both likeness and difference.

2. Difference subordinates to likeness in society.

3. Society is based on interdependence of individuals and groups.

4. Co-operation and conflict are equally found in society.

5. Society consists of groupings and divisions.

6. Society consists of mechanism of social control.

7. Society consists of liberty and constraints.

8. Society is permanent institution.

9. Society has both associative and dissociative types of the process of social interaction.

10. Society is abstract.

According to Mac Iver “society is co-operation crossed by conflict”.

 4

According to patriarchal and matriarchal theory the institution of family brought society into
existence. This theory was propounded by Henry Maine. According to him, there are two types
of society – (1) society based on status and (2) society based on contract.

According to social contract theory, society originated as result of contract. This theory was
propounded by Hobbes, Locke and J. J. Rousseau.

According to the evolutionary theory, society is gradual process of growth. It is a continuous

development from unorganised to organised, from less perfect to more perfect.

Herbert Spencer propounded the organic theory of Society and he gave the concept of Organic
Analogy. According to him society is a social organism.

According to groups mind theory, the structure and organisation of spirit of community is in
every respect as purely mental or psychological as the structure and organisation of the
individual mind.

According to Aristotle, man is a social animal. It implies that man’s nature is such that he cannot
afford to live alone.

Necessity makes man social.

Society determines personality.

Difference between Society and A society

Society is a system of social relationship while a society is a group of individuals.

Society is abstract, while a society is concrete.

Society has no certain geographical boundaries but a society has certain geographical boundary.

Society is a complex system while there is no complexity in a society.

There is no limitation of social responsibility in a society, but there is limited social

responsibility in A society.

Society is characterised by differentiation while a society is characterised by likeness.

A system model of society was advocated by Vilfred Pareto, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim,
Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton. This model has perceived society as a social system.

According to conflict model of Society, every society is an arena of conflict among people.
Some people achieve their will, but always at the expense of others and once they succeed the
build pattern that favours them. This model was advocated by Karl Marx, Ralf Dahrendorf and
C. Wright Mills.

According to interactionist model, society is interacting individual, communicating, sharing, and

co-operating.
 5

Origin of Society

According to Divine Origin Theory, society is a handiwork of God and it was given to human
being by God.

According to Force theory there are few powerful and strong people in society who exercised
their authority over others.

Howard Becker has classified society into two types- (1) Sacred society (2) Secular society.

According to Karl Mannheim, there are three types of society- (1) Systematic society, (2)
General Society, (3) Historical society.

Anthony Giddings has classified society into seven types-(1) Hunting and gathering society, (2)
Agricultural society, (3) Pastoral society, (4) Traditional society, (5) Society of first world, (6)
Society of Second word, (7) Society of third world.

According to structural point of view society is total social heritage of folkways, mores and
institutions of habit, sentiments and ideals.

According to Morgan the moral stage of society passed through primitive, barbaric and civilized
stage of development.

Community

Mac Iver defines community as “an area of social living marked by some degree of social
coherence”. He further says “whenever the members of any group, small or large, living together
in such a way that share, not this or that particular interest, but the basic conditions of a common
life, we call that group a community”.

We know that a person rarely exists alone. He is linked with many ways to his fellows who form
a group.

We cannot, however, except a man to become the member of all the groups existing in the world.

He can establish his relations only with the people who reside near him in a definite part of the
territory.

It is inevitable that the people who over any length of time reside in a particular locality should
develop special likeness, should have common social ideas, common traditions and the sense of
belonging together. This fact of social living and common specific area gives birth to
community.

Definitions

Lundberg- “community is a human population living within a limited geographic area and
carrying on a common a common inter-dependent life”.
 6

Mannheim- “community is any circle of people who live together and belong together in such a
way that they do not share this or that particular interest only, but a whole set of interests”.

Bogardus-“community is a social group with some degree of we feeling and living in a given
area”.

Osborne and Neumeyer- “community is a group of people living in a contiguous geographic

area, having common centres of interest and activities and functioning together in the chief
concerns of life”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff- “community is the total organisation of social life with a limited area”.

Kingsely Davis- “community is the smallest territorial group that can embrace all aspects of
social life”.

Ginsberg- “community is the group of social beings living a common life including all the
infinite variety and complexity of relations which result from that common life or constitute it”.

G. D. H. Cole- “by a community I mean a complex of social life, a complex including a number
of social beings, living together under conditions of social relationships, bound together by a
common, however constantly changing stock of conventions, costumes and traditions and
conscious to some extent of common social objects and interests”.

Dawson and Gettys- “community is a unit of territory within which is distributed a population
which possesses the basic institutions by means of which a common life is made possible”.

Sutherland- “a community is a local area, over which people are using same languages,
conforming to the same mores, feeling more or less the same sentiments and acting upon the
same attitudes”.
 7

F. L. Lumley- “a community may be defined as a permanent local aggregation of people having

diversified as well as common interests and served by a constellation of institutions”.

Arnold Green- “a community is cluster of people, living within a contiguous small area, who
share a common way of life”.

H. T. Majumdar- “community comprises the entire group sympathetically entering into a

common life within a given area, regardless of the extent of area or state boundaries”.

Talcott Parsons- “a community is that collectivity, the members of which share a common
territorial area as their base of operation for daily activities”.

Blaire E. Merca- “a human community is a functionally related aggregate of people who live in a
particular geographic locality at a particular time, share a common culture, are arranged in social
structure and exhibit an awareness of their uniqueness and separate identity as a group”.

Joeberg Gidden- “a community is a collectivity of actors sharing a limited territorial area as the
base for carrying out the greatest share of their daily activities”.

In the above definitions, we find two approaches to the meaning of community. While some
writers have given the areally based conception of the community emphasising its ecological
aspect. Others have adopted psychological emphasis in their thinking about the community. Don
Martingale is the most explicit writer who has denied the necessity for an areally based
conception of community. He has spoken of the community “not as term for an area where
people live but for a kind of integrated system of social life, in which geographical area is
secondary or irrelevant. However the general consensus is that the areal connotations should be
retained when speaking of communities.

Elements of Community

The following are the elements on the basis of which we can decide whether a particular group is
community or not.

(1) Group of people (share the basic conditions of common life).

(2) Locality (resides in a definite locality).

 8

(3) Community sentiment (we feeling among the members).

(4) Permanency (not transitory like a crowd, but permanent life in a definite place).

(5) Naturality (not made or created by act of will, but are natural).

(6) Likeness (likeness in language, customs, mores, etc.

(7) Wider ends (ends of a community are wider, these are natural.)

(8) A particular name.

(9) No legal status.

(10) Size of the community. (Community involves the idea of size. It may be big or small. A
small community may be included in a wider community. A city and a village may be included
in a wider community called the district. Thus the term community is used as relative sense).

(11) Regulation of relations.

A community may be big or small. A big community such as a nation will contain within a
number of small communities and groups with close bounds of unity and more numerous
common qualities. Today, efforts are being made to extend the limits of community so as to
include the whole earth and create one world community.

Smaller communities like village or neighbourhood are the example of primitive world. With the
expansion of community to the dimensions of the nation, and even the world, smaller
communities now remain only in degree. Both the types of communities, big or small are
essential to the full development of life. While larger communities provide peace and protection,
the smaller provide friends and friendship.

Difference between Community and Society

(1) Community sentiment.

(2) Definite locality

(3) Community a species of society (community exists within society and possesses its
distinguishable structure which distinguishes it from other communities).

(4) Community is concrete, society is abstract (society is a network of social relationships which
cannot be seen or touched. It is an abstract concept. But community is a concrete concept. It is a
group of people living together in a particular locality and having a feeling of oneness. We can
this group and locate its existence).

Zimmerman and Frampton describe the distinction between community and society as follows.
 9

In the community (Gemeinschaft) the group has life of its own, superior to that of its temporary
members. The group is an end of itself. In the society (Gesellschaft) the group is merely a means
to an end. In the Gemeinschaft we have faith, customs, natural solidarity, common ownership of
property and a common will. In the Gesellschaft we have doctrine, public opinion, fashion,
contractual solidarity, private property and individual will.

Communities may be of four types- village or rural, city or urban, nation and world.

In modern times, the nature of community sentiment is gradually changing.

Today the interests of people are diverse and complex.

Their attachment towards their community is gradually fading.

In modern highly industrialised urban communities, the spirit of the community sentiment is
very much lacking.

Association

We use the terms association and institution very commonly in our daily talks.

Sometimes these terms are using interchangeably to mean one and the same.

But these words are used in a specific sense in sociology.

Meaning

Men have diverse needs, desires, interests and ends which demand their satisfaction.

They have three ways of fulfilling their ends. (1) They may act independently, each in his way,
without bothering about others. This is unsocial and has its own limitations. (2) Men may seek
their ends through conflicts with one another. One may clash with another or others to stanch
things or objects which one wants from others. (3) Men may try to fulfil their ends through co-
operation and mutual assistance. On the basis of this co-operative effort each individual will be
contributing to the needs of his fellow-men. This co-operative pursuit has a reference to
association.

When a group or collection of individuals organises itself expressly for the purpose of pursuing
certain of its interests together on a co-operative pursuit, an association is said to be born.

An association is a group of people organised for a particular purpose or a limited number of

purposes. (e.g. political associations,).

According to Mac Iver, an association is “an organisation deliberately formed for the collective
pursuit of some interests or set of interests, which its members share”.

According to Ginsberg an association is “a group of social beings related to one another by the
fact that they possess or have instituted in common an organisation with a view to securing a
specific end or specific ends”.
 10

G. D. H. Cole writes. : “by an association I mean any group of persons pursuing a common
purpose by a course of co-operative action extending beyond a single act and for this purpose
agreeing together upon certain methods of procedures, and laying down in however rudimentary
a form, rule, or common action”.

According to Bogardus “association is usually a working together of people to achieve some

purposes”.

To constitute an association, there must be (1) a group of people, (2) these people must be
organised ones i.e., there must be certain rules for their conduct in the group and (3) they must
have a common purpose of specific nature to pursue.

Thus family, church, trade union, music club all are the instances of association.

Association may be formed on several bases, for example, on the basis of duration i.e.,
temporary or permanent like Flood Relief Association which is temporary and state which is
permanent. Or on the basis of power i.e., sovereign like state, semi-sovereign like University and
non-sovereign like clubs, or on the basis of function, i.e., biological like family, vocational like
trade union or teachers association, recreational like Tennis club or Music club, Philanthropic
like charitable societies.

Difference between Society and Association

(1) Society is older than association.

(2) The aim of society is general. (while association is particular).

(3) Society may be organised or unorganised. (but association must be organised).

(4) Membership of society is compulsory.

(5) Society is marked by both co-operation and conflict, whereas association is based on co-
operation alone.

(6) Society is a system of social relationships; association is a group of people.

(7) Society is natural, association is artificial.

Difference between Association and Community

(1) An association is partial, while the community is a whole. (an association is formed for the
achievement of some specific purposes which does not include the whole purposes of life,
community includes the whole circle of common life).

(2) Association exists within community. (an association is formed by the individuals for the pursuit
of their individual interest).

(3) Association is an artificial creation, community is a natural growth. (association is deliberately

created for realising a specific purpose. Community grows out of community sentiments. It has
no beginning, no hour of birth, it is spontaneous).
 11

(4) Membership of an association has limited significance, while the membership of community has
wider connotations.

(5) The membership of an association is voluntary but the membership of a community is

compulsory.

(6) An association got its office bearers who manage its affairs but an office is not necessary to
constitute a community.

(7) A community works through customs and traditions, while an association works mostly through
written laws and rules. The constitution of an association is generally written. It has a legal
status.

It may however, be noted that association may become communities by serving plurality of ends,
though that may never be reached. Thus the so called communities, which give rise to the
problem of communalism, may not be called communities in the sociological sense. They are
rather racial or religious groups.

Institution

In ordinary speech or writing, people often use the term institution to mean an organisation with
some specific purpose, as a public or charitable institution.

Sometimes it is used to denote any set of people in organised interaction as a family or club or
government.

For the purposes of Sociology, a more precise definition is required.

Definitions

Mac Iver defined institution as “the established forms or conditions of procedure characteristic of
group activity”.

According to Sunmer “an institution consists of a concept (idea, notion, doctrine or interest) and
a structure”.

According to Woodward and Maxwell “an institution is a set or web of interrelated folkways,
mores and laws which enter in some function or functions”.

According to Green, “an institution is the organisation of several folkways and mores into a unit
which serves a number of social functions”.

According to Gillin and Gillin “a social institution is a functional configuration of culture pattern
(including actions, ideas, attitudes and cultural equipment) which possesses certain permanence
and which is intended to satisfy felt social needs”.

According to Ginsberg, “institutions are definite and sanctioned forms or modes of relationship
between social beings in respect to one another or to some external object”.
 12

According to Horton and Hunt, “an institution is an organised system of relationships which
embodies certain common rules and procedures and meets certain basic needs of the society”.

H. T. Majumdar defines institution as “the collective mode of response or behaviour which has
outlasted a generation, which prescribes a well defined way of doing things and which binds the
members of the group together into an association by means of rituals, symbols, procedures and
officers possessed of regulatory power or danda’.

Acccording to Bogardus, social institution is a structure of society that is organised to meet the
needs of the people chiefly through well established procedures”.

According to Young, “an institution is a set of folkways and mores integrated round a principal
function of the society”.

According to C. H. Cooley, “an institution is a complete organisation of collective behaviour

established in the social heritage and meeting some persistent need or want”.

H. E. Barnes holds that social institutions are the social structures and machinery through which
human society organises, directs and executes the multi-farious activities required for human
need”.

Institutions are forms of procedures. Every organisation is dependent upon certain recognised
and established set of rules, traditions and usages. These usages and rules may be given the name
of institutions. They are forms of procedures which are recognised and accepted by society and
govern the relations between individuals and groups. Thus marriage, family, religion, etc. are the
main institutions.

Characteristics

(1) Institutions are means of controlling individuals.

(2) Institutions depend upon the collective activities of men.

(3) The institution has some proceedings which are formed on the basis of customs and dogmas.

(4) Institution is more stable than other means of social control.

(5) Every institution has some rules which must be compulsorily obeyed by the individuals.

(6) Every institution has got a symbol which may be material or non-material.

(7) Institutions are formed to satisfy the primary needs of men. It has social recognition behind it.

Difference between Institution and Association

(1) Association represents human aspect. If institution is the rules of procedures, association is a
group of persons organised for the pursuit of a specific purpose. Family is an association which
is organised for the purpose of propagation of mankind while marriage is its main institution.
Likewise party system is an institution, but state is an association, baptism is an institution, but
church is an association. An association represents human aspect as while an institution is a
 13

social condition of conduct and behaviour. Institutions are the ways of attaining the objects for
which the association exists. A college is an association with specific purpose of imparting
education; lecture and examination systems are institutions.

(2) Associations have form and are concrete where as institutions have no forms and are abstract.

(3) Associations are things, institutions are modes. Institutions are modes and ways. We are born
and live in associations.

Sometimes same thing is termed both the institution and association, for e.g., a hospital or
college. But Mac Iver observes “if we are considering something as an organised group, it is an
association; if as a form of procedure it is institution. Association denotes membership;
institution denotes mode or means of service. When we regard a college as a body of teachers
and some students we are selecting its associational aspect but we regard it as an educational
system, we are selecting its institutional features”.

Difference between Institution and Society

(1) Society is a system of social relationships while institution is the organisation of rules, traditions
and usages.

(2) Institutions are forms of procedure which are recognised and accepted by society.

(3) Institutions exist for the society and govern the relations between members of the society.

(4) Society represents human aspect while an institution is a social condition of conduct and
behaviour.

Difference between Institution and Community

(1) Institution is an organisation of rules, traditions and usages, while community is a group of
people.

(2) Institution is a structure of society to fulfil some specific needs while community is a group of
people living in a particular locality and possessing community sentiment.

(3) Institution is abstract whereas community is concrete.

(4) Individuals are members of the community and not of the institution.

(5) Every institution is concerned with one particular aspect of life, while community is concerned
with social life as a whole.

(6) Institution is based up on the collective activities of human beings while community is based on
mutual relationships.

(7) Institutions are born in a community, while community grows itself.

 14

Importance of institution

Prof. Malinowski has described the importance of institutions as “every institution centres on a
fundamental need, permanently unites a group of people in a co-operative task and has its
particular body of doctrines and its technique or craft. Institutions are not simply and directly to
new functions, one need does not receive one’s satisfaction in one institution.”

Societies must produce new members, socialize them and give them a sense of purpose and
provide for the maintenance of order and the production and distribution of goods and services.

Each of these functions is performed through some social structures like family, school, state,
church and business enterprise

Institutions are the sanctioned rules and procedures to control the activities of social structures.

Thus marriage controls the family, education controls the schools, political system controls the
state, baptism controls the church and economic system controls the business enterprise.
Institution is a social condition of conduct and behaviour.

Mac Iver says “institution transfers cultural elements from one generation to another, introduces
unity in human behaviour, controls their conduct and guides man according to circumstances.”

Institutions simply the group or social acts of an individual. The parents learn their place and
children learn their duties towards the parents or elders in society through institutions.

As a matter of fact institutions maintain unity and harmony in the society.

They provide a unified pattern of diverse ways of human behaviour and action.

It may not however, be construed that institutions do not create some evils. They generally create
hurdles in the smooth growth of society, for example caste system has created unbreakable
divisions. Religion has led to communalism. Marx called it “the opium to the masses” which
keeps them in abject divisions. India was partitioned in the name of religion.

However it is difficult to see how any society can keep united without the aid of institutions.

Things to be remembered…

Organisation- means an arrangement of persons or parts. Thus family, church, college, factory,
play ground, a political party, a community, an empire, United Nations, etc., all are examples of
organisation. In all these cases there is an arrangement of persons or parts that compose the
organisation. In this arrangement the persons or parts are interrelated and interdependent. They
function in co-ordinated manner, to accomplish a goal. The members of an organisation are
assigned fixed tasks and responsibilities according to their status and role. There are many kinds
of organisations. A state is called political organisation, because it is concerned with political
matters. A factory is called an economic organisation because it is concerned with production
and distribution of wealth. A church is a religious organisation. A bank is a financial
organisation. But all these organisations are social organisations that are organising the society.
 15

An organisation differs from a group or association refers to two or more persons held together
for the pursuit of some specific objective, while organisation refers to the co-ordinated social
relationships among interdependent parts or groups. Its elements are (1) Goal, (2) preparedness
to accept one’s roles and status, (3) Norms and mores, (4) Sanctions.

Social system- is an orderly and systematic arrangement of social interactions. It is a network of

interactive relationships. It may be defined as plurality of individuals interacting with each other
according to the shared cultural norms and meanings. The constituent parts of a social system are
individuals. Each individual has a role to play. He participates in interactive relationships. He
influences the behaviour of other individuals and is influenced by their behaviour. The behaviour
of individuals and groups in society is controlled by social institutions. The various groups do
not act in independent and isolated manner. They are coherent parts of an independent whole.
They act in accordance with social norms. On the basis of their interactions and interrelationship
they create a pattern which is called social system. Social system is an organisation as it is an
orderly and systematic arrangement of parts. But unlike an organisation, it lays emphasis on
interaction and functional interrelationship of the parts. Within the social system there are
various sub-systems like political system, educational system, economic system, etc. In all these
systems each of the interacting individuals has a function to perform. (Characteristics) Social
system is based on social interaction, the interaction should be meaningful, social system is a
unity, the parts of the system are related on the basis of functional relationship, social system is
related to cultural system and social system has an environmental aspect.

Culture – meaning and characteristics

In Sociology, the term culture used in specific sense and it gained popularity in Germany in 18th
century.

It was first used in Anthropology by Edward Tylor, an English Scholar in 1871 and has come to
be widely used in Sociological discourse in 19th century.

Both society and culture have been invariably employed and there is as yet no general agreement
about its meaning.

It is impossible to exist a society without culture and a culture without society. So culture is an
unavoidable part of society.

To any casual observer, human behaviour will reveal two characteristics: the first that human
beings are social animals and are not isolated creatures; the second that the behaviour of human
beings shows regular and recurrent patterns.

Certain types of human action are frequently repeated.

Every group of human beings has its own standardised way of living, similarly we can think of
similarities in human behaviour.

Each particular group has its unique standardised pattern of behaviour.

 16

These two aspects of human behaviour, i.e., the social character of human life and the existence
of a standardised pattern of behaviour, are obviously the basis for the study of Sociology.

Sociologists have developed two concepts, culture and society, in order to account for and
explain the regularities in human action and the fact of social life.

The sociological meaning of the term culture differs sharply from the ordinary and literary uses
of the term.

In conventional usage, the word culture is employed to designate only those particular traits and
behaviour systems that are regarded as refinements, such as painting, music, poetry, philosophy,
art galleries, etc.

The adjective ‘cultured’ stands close to ‘cultivated’ or ‘refined.’

The sociological use of the term does not exclude music, painting, and art galleries but it also
includes football, cricket, beliefs, superstitions, practices and even crimes.

That is, it includes all the activities that are characteristic of a given group of people.

In sociological usage, culture refers to the totality of what is learned by individuals as members
of society; it is the way of life, a mode of thinking, acting and feeling.

A culture refers to the distinctive way of life of a group of people, their complete design for
living.

Culture is a very broad term that includes in itself all our walks of life, our modes of behaviour,
our philosophies and ethics, our morals and manners, our customs and traditions, our religious,
political, economic and other types of activities.

Mac Iver and Page say that culture “is the realm of styles, of values, of emotional attachments, of
intellectual adventures”. It is the entire social heritage which the individual receives from the
group.

Definitions

Tylor- “culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom
and any other capabilities acquired by man as a member of society.”

Malinowski- “culture is the handiwork of man and the medium through which he achieves his
ends.”

Robert Redfield-“culture is an organised body of conventional understanding manifest in art and

artefact, which persisting through tradition, characterises a human group.”

Joseph Pieper- “culture is the quintessence of all natural goods of the world and of those gifts
and qualities which, while belonging to man, lie beyond the immediate sphere of his needs and
wants.”
 17

Mac Iver- “culture is the expression of our nature in our modes of living and our thinking,
intercourse, in our literature, in religion, in recreation and enjoyment.”

Herbert Spencer- “culture is the super organic environment as distinguished from the organic, or
physical, the world of plants and animals.”

C.C. North- “culture consists in the instruments constituted by men to assist him in satisfying his
wants.”

H. T. Mazumdar- “culture is the sum total of human achievements, material as well as

nonmaterial, capable of transmission, sociologically, i.e., by tradition and communication,
vertically as well as horizontally.”

E. V. de-Roberty- “culture is the body of thoughts and knowledge, both theoretical and practical,
which only man can possess.”

Graham Wallas- “Culture is the accumulation of thoughts, values and objects, it is the social
heritage acquired by us from preceding generation through learning, as distinguished from the
biological heritage which is passed on to us automatically through the genes.”

Arnold W. Green- “Culture is the socially transmitted system of idealised ways in knowledge,
practice and belief, along with the artefacts that knowledge and practice produce and maintain as
they change in time.”

Lapiere- “Culture is the embodiment in customs, tradition, etc., of the learning of a social group
over the generation.”

Koenig- “Culture is the sum total of man’s effort to adjust himself to his environment and to
improve his modes of living.”

Lundberg- “Culture refers to the social mechanisms of behaviour and to the physical and
symbolic products of this behaviour.”

E. A. Hoebel- “Culture is the sum total of integrated learned behaviour patterns which are
characteristics of the members of society and which are, therefore, not the results of biological
inheritance.”

A. F. Walter Paul- “Culture is the totality of group ways of thought and action duly accepted and
followed by a group of people.”

Ralph Piddington- “The culture of people may be defined as the sum total of the material and
intellectual equipment whereby they satisfy their biological and social needs and adapt
themselves to their environment.”

Anderson and Parker- “Culture is the total content of the physico-social, bio-social and psycho-
social products, man have produced and the socially created mechanisms through which these
social products operate.”
 18

Bierstedt- “Culture is the complex whole that consists of everything we think and do and have as
members of society.”

Sapir- “Culture includes those general attitudes, views of life and specific manifestations of
civilisation that give a particular people its distinctive place in the world.”

Cooley, Argell and Carr- “Culture is the entire accumulation of artificial objects, conditions,
tools, techniques, ideas, symbols and behaviour patterns peculiar to a group of people possessing
a certain consistency of its own, and capable of transmission from one generation to another.”

Characteristics

(1) Culture includes an acquired quality.

(2) Culture is found among the human society.

(3) Culture is communicable. (transmissive)

(4) Culture is continuous and cumulative.

(5) Culture is not individualistic but social.

(6) Culture is the total social heritage.

(7) Culture is idealistic.

(8) Culture satisfies certain needs.

(9) Culture is capable of adjustments.

(10) There is quality of interaction in culture.

(11) Culture is an integrated system.

(12) Culture has the characteristic of adaptation.

(13) Culture varies from society to society.

(14) Culture is dynamic.

(15) Culture evolves into more complex forms through division of labour which develops
social skills and increases the interdependence of society’s members.

The two essential points in regard to culture are emphasised in the definitions of Sir Edward
Tylor and Robert Redfield. The phrases ‘acquired by man’ and ‘persisting through tradition’
throw into focus two important dimensions of culture. (1) A human child, as he grows up, learns
gradually from parents or from the members of the group among whom he is born and among
whom he lives. The fact of ‘learning’ indicates that one cannot acquire culture in isolation from
society. In other words, the concept of culture has a social context. (2) Redfield’s use of the
phrase ‘persisting through tradition’ is recognition of the important fact that what is learned in
one generation is passed on to successive generations. That is a unique aspect of human culture.
 19

Acquisition of a particular way of life (i.e., culture) through tradition is possible simply because
human beings possess the ability to learn from the group.

The reason for the survival of man lies in the fact that he has the capacity to invent and learn
language, which in turn, enables him to build a culture and to organise society.

This art of symbolic communication enables man to transmit experiences gained in one
generation to successive generations.

Because of his ability to communicate symbolically, man has been able to develop various kinds
of ‘cultural aids’ to fulfil his various needs.

The behaviour of man is thus largely a product of ‘learning’ (emphasised by Tylor) and
‘experience’ (emphasised by Redfield).

These characteristics of culture have led some writers to define culture as man’s ‘social
heritage.’

The word ‘super organic’ is used by some writers to emphasise a certain degree of independence
of culture from inorganic and organic elements. The word‘super organic’ refers to the social
meaning of physical objects and physiological acts and emphasises the fact that this social
meaning may be relatively independent of physical and biological properties and characteristics.
In this sense ‘the super organic’ becomes a useful synonym for ‘culture”.

Each particular human group has its own distinctive standardised pattern of behaviour. It is
rooted in the traditions of the group and it is shared by all the members of the group. In other
words, each group has a distinctive design for living. The concept of culture as a distinct design
for living is useful too for differentiating one society from another.

The meaning of culture becomes clear when we take into account the four dimensions of culture-
that is (1) learned behaviour, (2) the social heritage, (3) super organic, (4) the design for living.
Acquaintance with these four dimensions of culture is essential to an understanding of the basic
concept.

Cultural Similarity: there are substantial similarities in the patterns of culture found among
different groups of men. That is there are traits common to all cultures. This universal culture
pattern may be expressed in terms of (1) all people have a family system, (2) all have a
language, (3) all have developed some sort of a system related to food, clothing, shelter, etc. (4)
every social group has some kind of government and patterns of social control, (5) property
system and inheritance rules are found in all lands, (5) people in all groups worship a Higher
Power.

Cultural Diversity: some writers have tried to explain diversities in cultural patterns in terms of
race and some others have explained these differences in terms of geographical and climate
variation.

Non-material and material elements of culture: Symbolic traits constitute a large part of every
culture. Every word in our language is a symbolic trait and every idea or belief is a complex of
 20

such traits. These symbolic traits which constitute an important part of every culture are called
non-material culture.

In addition to symbolic traits, there are non-symbolic or material traits that are associated with
behaviour systems. Material culture includes all those material products which man creates and
uses, ranging from the primitive instruments of prehistoric man to most advanced machinery of
modern man. Examples of non-symbolic or physical traits of cultural behaviour are buildings,
bridges, dams, books, etc. The significance of non-symbolic cultural traits lies in the fact that
they have an existence independent of the behaviour that produced them. Very often they survive
long after the people who produced them have ceased to exist. For example, we can investigate
the physical traits dug up in the ruins of ancient societies and can reconstruct the modes of life,
i.e. the cultural behaviour, that are likely to have prevailed among those people. The symbolic
and non-symbolic products of cultural behaviour are integrated closely together and form part
and parcel of standardised pattern of behaviour, a consistent and systematic whole.

Cultural lag: The Concept of cultural lag was first used by W.F. Ogburn in his famous book
“Social Change”. Of course ogburn was the first sociologist to use and discuss the idea of
cultural lag and formulate a definite theory. But in the writings of other famous sociologists such
as W.G. summer, Herbert Spencer and Muller the existence of a cultural lag is implied.
However, it was Ogburn who divides culture into two types such as material and non-material
culture. By material culture he means those things which are tangible, concrete and observable
such as table, chair, utensils etc. But non-material culture refers to those things which are
intangible and abstract such as good will, customs, traditions, values etc. But Ogburn opines that
changes first comes into material aspects of culture and when changes occur in material aspects
of culture those in turn stimulate changes in non-material aspects of culture.
But Ogburn opines that the non material aspects of culture are often slow to respond to the
changes and invention made in material culture. When non-material culture fails to adjust itself
to the changes in material culture it falls or lags-behind the material culture and as a result a lag
or gap between the two is created. And Ogburn calls this lag or gap between two inter-related
parts of culture i.e. Material and non-material as cultural lag.
Defining cultural lag Obgurn says, “The strain that exists between two correlated parts of culture
that change at unequal rates of speed may be interpreted as a lag in the part that is changing at
the lowest rate for the one lags behind the other”. Ogburn opines if society is to maintain
equilibrium both the parts of culture should be properly adjusted. To remove this gap between
two parts of
culture man should adopt his ways of thinking and behaving to the changes in technology.
Explaining the cause of cultural lag he says that the various elements of culture posses varying
degrees of changeability. It may also due to man’s psychological dogmatism. When social
institutions fails to adopt to the changes in material culture it leads to cultural lag.
Obgurn cited a number of examples to explain the concept of cultural lag. He opines that people
have changed their habitations and life style but not the life they lead within them. The number
of police force in a country remains constant whereas population of the country increasing
rapidly. As a result police force lags behind the population growth and cultural lag appears.
 21

Culture and civilisation: The distinction between non-material and material elements of culture
is made the basis of a distinction between culture and civilisation by Mac Iver. Culture, it is held
deals with interests and values conceived as ends. Civilisation on the other hand refers to the
whole mechanism and organisation which man has devised in his endeavour to control the
conditions of his life. Since culture is concerned with end, it is internal and value oriented. On
the other hand, since civilisation is concerned only with means, it is external to man and
utilitarian in character. The process of advance of both is important from the point of view of
social change. Culture and civilisation cannot, however, be treated in isolation. Civilisational
means may be represented by a ship, which can set sail to various ports. Difference between
culture and civilisation are…(1) civilisation has a definite standard of measurement, but not
culture, (2) the transmission of civilisation is easier than that of culture, (3) the achievements of
civilisation are marked by progressive improvement, but culture is subject to retrogression as
well as to advance, (4) the expansion of a civilisation follows different principles from those
which determine cultural development.

Content of culture: Broadly content of culture can be classified into non-material and material
culture. We define culture as the complex whole that includes all that we think and do as well as
all that we have. In other words, thinking (values, beliefs and ideologies), doing (norms) and
having (material) are the three components of culture.

Convention: Convention emphasises common agreement about a customary practice. It has

many forms. Convention is very useful code which serves to maintain a superficial but often a
serviceable type of solidarity.

Etiquette: It is used for certain customary practices in polite society, generally involving detailed
formalities. For example, it is bad manners for a host to sit down before his guest takes his seat.
Etiquette serves a social purpose, because it prescribes the procedure for specific occasions or
circumstances. Since it represents a code of manners of a group, etiquette distinguishes
superficially a social class, and is sometime made a criterion of one’s right to belong to it.

Cultural trait or culture item: When we talk about a very small bit of culture, we use the terms
‘trait’ or ‘item’. We may think of various types of culture traits. Thus a spoon may be regarded
as an item of material culture. The idea that ‘cleanliness is next to godliness’ may be looked
upon as an item of ideational culture. To say ‘Namaste’ or good morning to an acquaintance is
an item of culture associated with behaviour or social norms.

Culture complex: A culture complex is a functional combination of closely interrelated traits

within a culture. That is, culture complex refers to a combination of culture items or culture
traits. Thus shoe making is a cultural complex which is a combination of various culture traits,
such as tanning of leather, use of appropriate needles and other implements, the art of sewing,
etc. Likewise, cooking is a culture complex which consists of various culture items like the art of
making fire, the use of spices in proper proportions, the making of utensils, the art of growing
vegetables, etc.
 22

Culture pattern or Culture configuration: Just as item combines with item or trait with trait to
form a culture complex, so also various culture complexes combine together to produce a culture
pattern or culture configuration. Culture complexes of a group may be lumped into the following
six categories. (1) Economic, (2) Familial, (3) Educational, (4) Political, (5) Religious, (6)
Recreational. Culture complexes of these six basic types combine with one another in an almost
infinite number of ways to create the general culture fabric of a society. When we speak of an
agrarian society or a technological society, we actually refer to particular types of cultural pattern
characteristic of a particular society. When we speak of Indian culture or French culture we do so
keeping in view the unique culture pattern or configuration which obtains in Indian society or
French society.

Sub-culture or Contra-culture: Culture of a sub-group is called sub-culture. For e.g. Asssamese

or Maharashtrian culture, though essentially a part of Indian culture has some distinctive features
of theirs. Therefore, Assamese culture and Maharashtrian culture may be characterised as sub-
cultures. In a highly stratified society, different social classes may develop distinctive cultural
features of their own- say, in matter of dress, etiquette, food habits and even intonation. Such
social classes may be said to have developed sub-cultures.

When, however, differences of a sub-group are emphasised more than similarities, endangering
the persistence of the culture of which it is an offshoot, the particular sub-culture develops into
what Yinger characterised as counter culture.

Cultural growth: The development of culture is continuous process. In this process while the
experiences of the proponents of one culture are accumulated and handed down from one
generation to another on the one hand, new elements from the other cultures are introduced
through accommodation, cross fertilization and diffusion, on the other and cultural progress as a
result of their unification. The existing developed culture of any country as a result of these
processes carried out over a period of hundreds and thousands of years. In this development this
rate of progress is not uniform. At times it is slow while at other times it is relatively fast,
sometimes it is moving towards progress, at others towards deterioration. In order to understand
cultural growth properly, it is necessary to understand those processes of cultural growth i.e.
accumulation, diffusion, accommodation, cross fertilisation (the conjunction of two cultures is
beneficial to both since it does not happen that one should borrow from others exclusively. This
process of mutual give and take is called cultural fertilisation. Due to this culture retains its
validity and life.), acculturation and assimilation.

Cultural alternatives: when we speak of culture as cementing bond in society or as a normative

pattern to which the members of society conform, we do not mean that culture is a mould which
shapes all individuals alike. On the contrary, culture presents alternative lines of action or
conduct for individuals in certain cases which are equally acceptable. Such alternative lines of
actions or conduct are called cultural alternatives. A discerning observer of cultural scene in
contemporary India will conform the existence of various forms of greeting which are equally
accepted as ‘proper”.
 23

Cultural universals: Those culture traits which are necessary to all members of the society and
are followed by all of them are called cultural universals.

Cultural specialities: Cultural specialities are elements of culture which are shared by some, but
not all groups in a society. For e.g. baby nursing is a female speciality not shared by men. Nearly
every group in society- each age-group, sex group, occupational group, religious group- has
certain traits not shared by other groups.

Core culture: that part of the total culture of a society, which is shared by most members of
society, is called core culture.

Cultural diffusion: Cultural diffusion refers to a process by which culture traits or culture
complexes spread from one society to another. Modern means of transportation and electronic
communication is developed in one society is spread to other societies all over the world. This
applies not simply to items of material culture but also to items of non-material culture. If there
are no artificial restrictions like an embargo imposed by a Government, political and religious
ideas may spread like wild fire from one continent to another.

Acculturation: The process of acquiring the item or items of culture of a society, which is not
one’s own is called acculturation. It is the process of cultural change that occurs when culture
undergoes drastic alteration in the direction and conformity to another culture from which it
borrows numerous traits or principles. The acculturating society although drastically modifies,
retains its discrete identity. It become adjusted to, but not assimilated in the dominant society.
When in Rome, we are advised to do as Romans do. If one is in contact with another culture for
a prolonged period of time, he is likely to acquire in course of time some elements of the culture
with which he has been in contact. If, for e.g. an Indian, having lived in USA for several years,
acquires the American habit of taking dinner at 6 or 6.30 p.m., he may be said to have been
acculturated to some elements of American culture.

Cultural relativism/ relativity: Standard are relative to the culture in which they appear. It is
almost impossible to find absolute standard in human societies. In its simplest terms, cultural
relativism means that actions that are moral in some societies are immoral in others, that
propositions considered true in some are false in others, and that conduct that is approved and
even prescribed in some is disapproved and even forbidden in others. The principle of cultural
relativity raises a question about the possibility of universal norms.

Syncretism: The process of re-interpretation with retention of original function is called

syncretism. Religion provides many examples of syncretism. In parts of Catholic Negro
America, African deities have become identified with Catholic saints.

Cultural survival: Sometimes culture traits, items or complexes survive in society long after
their original function has disappeared and sometimes even after the limited reason for their
establishment has been forgotten. We observe today many customs and practices which were
considered useful and meaningful by those among whom those customs and practices developed.
Even though those customs do no longer carry any meaning to us, yet we follow them through
sheer habit. These are called cultural survival.
 24

Culture conflict: The term culture conflict is an ellipsis. That is, it is people who are in conflict
with one another, not cultures. The reason which prompts people to fight with one another may
sometimes have a cultural base. In such cases it is convenient to describe the conflict in terms of
the culture conflict. For e.g. Cow is a sacred animal and beef is a forbidden food in terms of
Hindu culture. To Muslims, on the other hand, the cow is like any other animal and there is no
taboo against the eating of beef. When Hindus and Muslims live side by side and there is no
attempt on either side to make suitable adjustments, their cultural attitude towards animal alone
may be, and have been in the past, perennial sources of conflict.

Ethnocentrism: This term refers to the tendency to use the things in which one’s own group is
the centre for everything and all others are measured and rated with reference to it. It means that
one’s culture as scale to with which to measure all other cultures as good or bad, high or low,
right or wrong in proportion as they resemble ours. Ethnocentrism is related to the principle of
cultural relativism. We have a tendency to evaluate other cultures in terms of our own. That is,
the ways of behaviour of people, who belong to a culture other than our own, are measured and
evaluated in terms of the standards and norms with which we are familiar. History is replete with
examples when people of one cultural group looked upon those who belonged to another cultural
group as barbarians.

Temporocentrism: Bierstedt has defined temporocentrism as “the unexamined and largely

unconscious acceptance of one’s own century, one’s own era, one’s own lifetime, as the centre
of sociological significance, as the focus to which all other periods of historical time are related,
and as the criterion by which they are judged.” We have the tendency to look upon the present as
more important than past, all the present practices as superior to those of the past.

Counter Culture: It refers to a sub-culture that included a core of beliefs and traits that differ
from those of wider culture. However it was not just different from the straight or mainstream
culture. It is an opposition to that culture. Its purpose is to counter the straight culture.

Mass Culture: according to some social scientists, industrialisation, bureaucratisation,

urbanisation and geographical mobility have undermined the importance of primary group or
close relationship among people. As a consequence society trends to be mass atomised,
undifferentiated individuals.

Universal Culture: This term refers to two distinct phenomena. (1) within culture and (2)
between culture. Within a culture a universal includes all the cultural contents, ideas, behaviours
and emotional responses that are common to all normal adult members of the culture. On a
intercultural level, the term refers to the aspects of culture believed to exist in all human
societies. In order to compare one culture with the other, the Anthropologists have to collect and
organise cultural data in relation to cross culturally relevant aspects.

Ethnocentrism: the term refers to the tendency to use the things in which one’s own group is the
centre for everything and all others are measured and related and reference to it. It means that
one’s culture as scale to with which to measure all other culture as good or bad, high or low,
right or wrong in proportion as they resemble ours.
 25

Emic and Elic Culture: The distinction between mental and behavioural events does not resolve
the question of what constitutes and adequate description of either the mental or behavioural
aspects of culture as a whole. The problem is that either thoughts or behaviour of participants can
be viewed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of the participants themselves
and from the perspective of the observer. In both instances scientific objective accounts of
mental and behavioural field are possible. In the first instances the observer employ concepts and
distinction that are meaningful and appropriate to the participants. In the second instance they
employ concepts and distinction that are meaningful and appropriate to the observers. The first
way of studying is called emic culture and the other is called elic culture.

Cultural Relativism: It is based on the assumption that cultures are equally valid and deserves
respect. An act that is immoral to one culture may be moral in another. But it is meaningless to
ask which culture is right. The only way of judging particular culture is by using standards that
are themselves part of some cultures. According to cultural relativists any attempt to judge one
culture by the standards of another is mere ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism means that the
function and meaning of a trait are relative to all cultural traits. A trait is neither good nor bad in
itself. It is good or bad only with reference to the culture in which its function.

Ethno genesis: This term refers to the creation of a new group or tribal identity. The
development of a new tribe with its own distinctive culture and language generally involves the
splitting of one society. In course of time these scattered groups or refugees from several tribes
or groups may form a distinct society.

Autonomous Culture: There are some primitive tribes in the world which are self sufficient and
require nothing from the outside world and hence their culture is also autonomous. They may not
be even come in contact with the outside world and themselves sufficient. Therefore this culture
is called as autonomous culture.

Cultural Pluralism: When two or more cultural systems are in long and continue to contact,
work out a mutual accommodation which allows each to sustain its distinctive way of life. Thus
a condition of stabilised cultural pluralism achieves.

Xenoentrism: This means a preference for the outside culture. It is exactly opposite to
ethnocentrism. It is the belief that our own products, styles or ideas are necessarily inferior to
others. It is based on the glamour of the strange, far away and the prestige of distinct cultures.

Explicit Culture: In all culture there are some customary practices and the ideas that guide those
practices. It stresses some values over others thereby providing the principles on which a specific
set of social pattern is based. The explicit culture refers to the outer and facial aspects of culture,
where intensive element or core culture is not considered.

Implicit Culture: The implicit culture deals with the integral aspects of culture. Here an inside
view of culture is presented. The inner world exists on different level of consciousness. First
there are patterns that exist below consciousness. And the second there are patterns that exist
closer to consciousness and that are formulated like the rules of contact and norms, etc.
 26

Overt and Covert Cultures: The cultural elements which are in practice in any society are their
patterned life reflects through their practices and mode of living and thinking. Some of these
elements can be observed directly by ethnographers, like the dressing systems, etc. called overt
culture. And those elements which are not possible to understand through direct observation are
called covert culture.

Cultural themes: Morris Opler is of the opinion that the integral aspect of culture can be
understood through themes of the culture. According to him while studying a particular society
one should locate and identify themes of that culture which would ultimately reveal on integrated
forms of culture.

Cultural Revitalization: This term refers to the process through which a society in decline,
reinterpret symbols from its culture. The new identity is a combination of all and new elements.

Cultural Construct: Ralph Linton was of the opinion that when we see something from our own
eyes and if that is a culture then whatever are right about the inside aspects of culture that should
be called as cultural construct.

Cultural Parallelism: The term cultural parallelism is also known as ‘independent invention’.
Few of the total mass of cultural traits possessed and shared by the people of the world have
been invented more than once. Culture grows more through diffusion than in isolation. Even
though certain traits are grown independently and separately in different region in the process of
its evolution. Such process is thus called as cultural parallelism or independent invention.

From the above discussion we are clear that each and every society has a culture of its own.
Culture is not only diverse but also unequal, but is found in societies throughout the world.

Types of society (Hunting and gathering, Pastoral, Horticultural, Agrarian,

Industrial)

Sociologists have classified the different types of societies into six categories, each of which
possess their own unique characteristics.

1. Hunting and gathering societies

2. Pastoral societies
3. Horticultural societies
4. Agricultural societies
5. Industrial societies
6. Post-industrial societies
Hunting and gathering

Hunting and gathering culture (100,000 BC - 8000 BC) also called foraging culture, any group of
people that depends primarily on wild foods for subsistence.

Hunting and gathering societies are the earliest form of society. The members survive primarily
by hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering edible plants. A majority of the members' time is
spent looking for and gathering food.
 27

Until about 12,000 to 11,000 years ago, when agriculture and animal domestication emerged in
southwest Asia and in Mesoamerica, all peoples were hunters and gatherers.

Their strategies have been very diverse, depending greatly upon the local environment; foraging
strategies have included hunting or trapping big game, hunting or trapping smaller animals,
fishing, gathering shellfish or insects, and gathering wild plant foods such as fruits, vegetables,
tubers, seeds, and nuts. Most hunters and gatherers combine a variety of these strategies in order
to ensure a balanced diet.

A foraging economy usually demands an extensive land area; it has been estimated that people
who depend on such methods must have available 18 to 1,300 square km (7 to 500 square miles)
of land per capita, depending upon local environmental conditions.

Permanent villages or towns are generally possible only where food supplies are unusually
abundant and reliable; the numerous rivers and streams of the Pacific Northwest, for instance,
allowed Native Americans access to two unusually plentiful wild resources—acorns and fish,
especially salmon—that supported the construction of large permanent villages and enabled the
people to reach higher population densities than if they had relied upon terrestrial mammals for
the bulk of their subsistence.

Conditions of such abundance are rare, and most foraging groups must move whenever the local
supply of food begins to be exhausted. In these cases possessions are limited to what can be
carried from one camp to another.

As housing must also be transported or made on the spot, it is usually simple, comprising huts,
tents, or lean-tos made of plant materials or the skins of animals.

Social groups are necessarily small, because only a limited number of people can congregate
together without quickly exhausting the food resources of a locality; such groups typically
comprise either extended family units or a number of related families collected together in a
band.

An individual band is generally small in number, typically with no more than 30 individuals if
moving on foot, or perhaps 100 in a group with horses or other means of transport.

However, each band is known across a wide area because all residents of a given region are
typically tied to one another through a large network of kinship and reciprocity; often these
larger groups will congregate for a short period each year.

Where both hunting and gathering are practiced, adult men usually hunt larger game and women
and their children and grandchildren collect stationary foods such as plants, shellfish, and
insects; forager mothers generally wean their children at about three or four years of age and
young children possess neither the patience nor the silence required to stalk game.

However, the capture of smaller game and fish can be accomplished by any relatively mobile
individual, and techniques in which groups drive mammals, birds, and fish into long nets or
enclosures are actually augmented by the noise and movement of children.
 28

For the 1st 5 million years or more of hominid history, our ancestors lived in hunting and
gathering societies. Only in the last 10,000-12,000 years have other types of societies evolved.

Even after the emergence of more advanced types of societies, hunting and gathering societies
continued to flourish in many parts of the world. A hundred years ago there were still larger
numbers of them in both the New World and Australia, and smaller numbers is SW Africa, in
parts of the rain forest in central Africa, in certain remote areas in southeast Asia and
neighbouring islands and in Arctic Asia

Most of the cultures are absorbed by new culture and the development of new technology from
the very simple beginnings of small instruments made of stones, bones, etc.

Comparing with modern society, little inequality is found in most hunting and gathering
societies.

There is mutual need of life was consisted with simple instruments and tools for hunting and
digging or cooking utensils.

Difference of position or rank tends to be limited to age and sex.

Men are always hunters, while women gather wild crops, cook and bringing up children.

This division of labour between men and women is very important.

Men gradually dominated in public and ceremonial positions.

The elders and most experienced men in the community usually have an important say in the
major decisions affecting the group.

But all adult male members gather to take important decisions regarding their life.

They are mostly live in most hospitable place, which provides better natural resources for their
existence.

They are little interested in developing material wealth.

Their main preoccupations were normally with religious values and the ceremonial and ritual
activities.

Many of them participate regularly in elaborate ceremonies.

Occasionally clashes may occur between different groups.

Hunting itself is important co-operative activity, so the warfare of modern times is completely
unknown to them.

Individual may go for hunting alone but they almost always share the result of hunt with the rest
of the group.

Features of hunting and gathering life

 29

(1) Lack of major inequalities of wealth and power.

(2) Absence of war.

(3) Emphasis on co-operation rather than competition.

(4) Hunting of wild animals by using spears, arrows, nets, traps, bows, etc. and gathering of wild
plants and food stuffs.

(5) Division of labour is mainly based on age and sex. Hunters generally males and gatherers
generally females.

(6) Family is the society's primary institution. Family determines the distribution of food and how to
socialize children.

(7) These societies are small compared to the others.

(8) Nomadic bands of 25 to 50 persons, labour inputs are normally.

(9) Hunting and gathering societies are nomadic, which means that they move constantly in order to
find food and water.

(10) Members of hunting and gathering societies are mutually dependent upon each other.

Summary…

Earliest form of human society.

Small size (family bands).

Most of the time spends looking for food.

Very nomadic.

Very low developed division of labour.

Pastoral Society

Pastoral societies began around 12,000 years ago.

These societies rely on products obtained through the domestication and breeding of animals for
transportation and food.

Pastoralists mainly depended animals as means of subsistence, which domesticated by them.

Pastoral societies are common in areas where crops cannot be supported, (e.g., North Africa)

Earlier hunters and gatherers turned their life towards animal husbandry.

Unlike hunting and gathering societies, pastoral societies only have to move when the land in
which the animals graze is no longer usable.
 30

Different types of animals like sheep, goat, pig, etc. were domesticated.

They usually migrate between different areas according to seasonal changes, because they had
animal transport.

They move across much larger distances than the hunting and gathering people.

But pastoralists were not nomads and do not normally accumulate any material possessions.

Pastoral societies also allow for job specialization, since not everyone is needed to gather or hunt
for food. For example, while some people breed animals, others are able to produce tools or
clothing, which allows for specialization in these areas.

Although their way of life is more complex in material terms than that of hunters and gatherers.

Since the domestication of animals permits a regular supply of food.

These societies are usually much larger than hunting and gathering.

Pastoralists regularly came in contact with other groups.

They frequently engage in trade and also in warfare.

Many pastoral cultures had been peaceful and worked for increasing their life stock and engage
in community rituals and ceremonials.

Others have been widely engaged in wars and conquests.

Pastoral society displays great inequalities of wealth and power than hunting and gathering
society.

Chiefs and tribal leaders or war lords often yield considerable personal power.

Many of their rituals are connected with the domesticated animals.

Horticultural Society

Horticultural societies emerged between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago in Latin America, Asia,
and parts of the Middle East.

These societies rely on the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and plants in order to survive.

Horticultural societies are often forced to relocate when the resources of the land are depleted or
when the water supplies decrease.

Fruits and vegetables grown in garden plots that have been cleared from the jungle or forest
provide the main source of food in a horticultural society.

These societies have a level of technology and complexity similar to pastoral societies.

Some horticultural groups use the slash-and-burn method to raise crops.

The wild vegetation is cut and burned, and ashes are used as fertilizers.
 31

Horticulturists use human labour and simple tools to cultivate the land for one or more seasons.

When the land becomes barren, horticulturists clear a new plot and leave the old plot to revert to
its natural state.

They may return to the original land several years later and begin the process again. By rotating
their garden plots, horticulturists can stay in one area for a fairly long period of time.

This allows them to build semi-permanent or permanent villages.

The size of a village's population depends on the amount of land available for farming; thus
villages can range from as few as 30 people to as many as 2000.

As with pastoral societies, surplus food leads to a more complex division of labor. Specialized
roles in horticultural societies include craftspeople, religious leaders, and traders.

This role specialization allows people to create a wide variety of artifacts.

As in pastoral societies, surplus food can lead to inequalities in wealth and power within
horticultural political systems, developed because of the settled nature of horticultural life.

Evolution of horticultural societies followed two phases. (1) Simple horticultural societies and
(2) Intensive horticultural societies.

(1) Simple horticultural Societies

Although hunters and gatherers have probably known for around ten thousand years back and
some of them begun to live in settled villages devoted to the practice of agriculture.

In transmission of human kind to an agricultural, technically horticultural mode of existence is

known as Neolithic revolution.

The transmission to agriculture occurred on independent basis in several different regions of the
world and at somewhat at different times.

The most important domesticated plants were wheat and barley and of animals were sheep, goat
and pig.

The actual process of domestication of appeared and followed the emergence of villages
organised around the harvesting of wheat and barley.

Like pastoralism, horticulture provides for a more assured supply of food than is possible by
hunting and gathering and therefore can support much larger communities.

One fin example for it we can consider the ‘Gururumba’ tribe of Kenya. Just of 1000 living in 6
villages, in each village there are several gardens. Floats are owned by several families. Men and
women are responsible for different types of fruits and vegetables.

Simple horticultural people live in small villages ordinarily containing 100 to 200 persons.

Although villages are substantially larger and each village is centre for economic and ceremonial
activity.
 32

There are self sufficient units. Marriages often take place from individual from different villages
and persons residing in separate villages often come together on ceremonial occasions.

Members of culturally and linguistically related villages collectively constitute a tribe.

Most simple horticultural people reside in heavily forested areas and practice a form of
cultivation known as shifting cultivation.

This cultivation technique involves cutting down a section of forest growth and setting fire to the
accumulated debris. The ashes those remain used as fertilizer.

The crops are then planted in these cleared plots.

The task of clearing and preparing the plots are generally falls to men, while that of planting and
harvesting is typically considered the responsibility of women.

Characteristics

(1) Small scale gardening

(2) Generally use slash and burn cultivation method.

(3) Men prepare garden sight and women are commonly makes the harvest.

(4) Gardens move frequently.

(5) Fallow periods are 20 to 30 years.

(6) Labour inputs are typically low.

(2) Intensive horticultural societies

Many of the simple horticultural societies that ushered the existence by Neolithic revolution in
due time evolved into intensive horticultural societies.

Hundreds of horticultural societies have existed during the past several thousand years of human
history.

Like simple horticulturalists, intensive horticulturalists depended on cultivated garden products

for the bulk of their food supply.

Intensive horticulturalists differ in several significant ways from simple horticulturalists. One
principle is the length of the time that remains fallow.

Simple horticulturalists generally permit the land to remain fallow for 20 to 30 years before
using it again.
 33

Intensive horticulturalists shorten the fallow period 5 to 10 years. Thus cropping a given plot of
land more frequently to compensate for the increase in soil fertility that accompanies frequent
cropping.

Intensive horticulturalists further fertilise the soil by adding the animal manure, etc.

The shortening of fallow period as the effect of eventually converting thick forest growth to
bush, compared to simple horticulturalists, intensive horticulturalists consider more productivity
of land.

Intensive horticulturalists in fact produce seasonable economic surpluses and these surpluses are
used to support the people who are freed from direct involvement in agricultural productions.

In many intensive horticultural societies the members of this category is regarded as the owners
of land and in all such societies they direct many economic activities.

Their standard of living is also somewhat higher than simple horticulturalists.

Characteristics

(1) Small scale gardening.

(2) Used slash and burn technique.

(3) The fallow period shortened to 5 to 10 years.

(4) New techniques and instruments like irrigation system.

(5) Extensive fertilisation of garden plots.

(6) Labour inputs moderated.

Summary …

Villages (less than a hundred inhabitants to several hundred).

Family, clans, developed.

Domestication of plants and animals.

Semi-nomadic.

Food production is a major social effort.

Division of labour evolves especially by gender.

Religious and military leader roles.

Agrarian societies
 34

Also referred to as agrarian societies, agricultural societies rely on the use of technology in order to
cultivate crops in large areas, including wheat, rice, and corn.

The first agrarian societies came into existence around 5000 to 6000 years back.

In many parts of the world agrarian societies rest up on to agriculture.

Land is cleared of all vegetation and cultivated with the use of plough and draft animals hatched
to the plough.

Fields are extensively fertilised usually with animal manure.

When land is cultivated in this fashion, is used more or less continuously.

The fallow period are very short or do not exist.

Often crop may be cultivated in given land annually in some cases.

Several harvests may be repeated in the same plot of land.

A number of agrarian societies existed in areas where rain fall is sufficient to nourish crops.

Agrarian society may be based on rain fall farming.

But in certain areas, they developed irrigation system to water their crops.

Agrarian farmers work much harder than the members of earlier societies.

The task of clearing the land by ploughing and later sowing, harvesting, tending animals and so
on require extensive labour inputs, where irrigation system must be constructed with their work
even harder.

Because of these efforts, agrarian farmers produce much more per unit of land.

What they produce constitute an economic surplus.

But their efforts and large surpluses do not yield them a higher standard of living indeed.

But their standard of living is generally lower.

Most of the members of agrarian societies are peasants.

They are primarily producers.

The persons who farm the land day to day because there exists politically, economically
dependent and subordinate relationship to the principal owners of the land.

They themselves do not own the land, but merely allowed to use it.

But they are free from full control over the dispensation of the produce.
 35

But in certain region, there are slaves differ from the peasants is that they are legally owned and
be bought and sold.

Greater degrees of social stratification appeared in agrarian societies. For example, women
previously had higher social status because they shared labour more equally with men.

Characteristics

1. Large scale intensive agricultural system.

2. Use of plough and transportation of animals.

3. Fields are entirely cleared and cultivated permanently or semi-permanently.

4. Capable of generating large economic surplus.

5. Require large labour inputs.

The technological advances led to an increase in food supplies, an increase in population, and the
development of trade centres. This period of technological changes is referred to as the
Agricultural Revolution and began around 8,500 years ago.

Summary….

Developed large scale agriculture.

Large societies with large cities.

Multiethnic society.

Large division of labour.

Farming technology roles (government, religion, business, etc.)

Peasants are the largest class.

Industrial Societies

Industrialisation destroyed the forms of society which dominated the whole of history up to two
centuries ago.

The Industrial Revolution began with England's improvement and use of the steam engine as a
way to power machines. Industrial societies rely on advanced energy sources in order to run
machinery.

The emergence of machine production based on the use of inanimate power resources like steam
or electricity.

Industrial societies were developed with the Industrial Revolution that started around 1769.
 36

The industrial societies are totally different from any previous type of social order and their
development has consequences stretching beyond the European origin.

Industrialisation has originated in 18th century in England as the result of industrial revolution
which totally changed the pattern of the life of the people and the means which they gained their
livelihood.

These changes included the invention of new machines, power resources of production and the
use of science to improve production methods.

Since inventions and discoveries in one field provoked more in others.

The phase of technological innovations in industrial society is extremely rapid compared with
traditional social system.

The increased efficiency of production of the industrial revolution produced an even greater
surplus than before.

Once again, the population boomed.

Increased productivity made more goods available to everyone. However, inequality became
even greater than before.

The breakup of agricultural-based feudal societies caused many people to leave the land and seek
employment in cities.

This created a great surplus of labor and gave capitalists plenty of laborers who could be hired
for extremely low wages.
Characteristics
(1.) Emergence of modern family.

(2.) Economic institutions.

(3.) Occupational sub-cultures.

(4.) Segmented roles.

(5.) Impersonality of relationships.

(6.) Status to contract.

(7.) Social mobility.

(8.) Position of women changed.

(9.) Deviance and anomie.

Changes that occurred in industrialized societies include:

(1) Innovations in transportation, including the creation of automobiles, the train, and
steamship.
 37

(2) Newly developed transportations allowed people and goods to travel longer distances.
(3) Since fewer people were needed to cultivate food, urban societies were developed.
(4) For the first time, more people lived in or near major cities than in farming areas.
(5) Suburban communities were developed.
(6) The development of mass forms of communication, increased job specialization, and the
ability to harness electricity.

The prime feature of industrial societies today is that large majority of the employed population
work in factories, offices, shops rather than in agriculture and they live in towns and cities.

In cities social life became more impersonal and anonymous than before.

And many of our day to day encounters are with strangers rather than individuals known to us.

Large scale organisations such as business corporations or government agencies came to

influence people.

The political system of modern society is also changed.

Customs and traditions changed into integrated national community.

National states are political communities divided from each other by clearly defined boarders.

The superior economic strength, political cohesion and military superiority also advanced much
more than those of non-industrial cultures which spread as western ways of life across the world.

Some more things to be remembered…

Post-Industrial Societies have emerged in recent decades.

Rather than focusing on production, these societies are economically focused on providing
services and technology.

The development and advancement of computer technology, television, and the creation of the
radio are all associated with the development of post-industrial societies.

Post-industrial societies are societies dominated by information, services, and high technology
more than the production of goods.

Advanced industrial societies are now seeing a shift toward an increase in service sectors over
manufacturing and production.

The U.S. is the first country to have over half of its work force employed in service industries.
Service industries include government, research, education, health, sales, law, banking, and so
on.

It is still too early to identify and understand all the ramifications this new kind of society will
have for social life.

In fact, even the phrase "post-industrial" belies the fact that we don't yet quite know what will
follow industrial societies or the forms they will take.
 38

The countries that the industrial revolution began, -Britain, France, the USA and Japan- now
became the post-industrial countries.

These countries are users of advance technologies like developed computers, satellites,
microchips.

In short, those societies are affected by the technologies at first hand. In comparison with
horticultural societies it can be easily understood that how technology is important to shape and
characterize a society.

Since they are trailblazers of technologies, they are now holding all world´s economy in their
hands.

There is not rural and urban areas difference as well as people who are economically at the top
and middle.

According to common view, in those societies, there is neither social inequality nor
classification.

People won their own freedom by working hard, if there are any differences or discrimination,
this is caused by capitalist and global world, not the governments´ mistakes.

That is, rather than being driven by the factory production of goods, society is being shaped by
the human mind, aided by computer technology.

Although factories will always exist, the key to wealth and power seems to lie in the ability to
generate, store, manipulate, and sell information.

Sociologists speculate about the characteristics of post-industrial society in the near future.

They predict increased levels of education and training, consumerism, availability of goods, and
social mobility.

While they hope for a decline in inequality as technical skills and “know-how” begins to
determine class rather than the ownership of property, sociologists are also concerned about
potential social divisions based on those who have appropriate education and those who do not.

Sociologists believe society will become more concerned with the welfare of all members of
society.

They hope post-industrial society will be less characterized by social conflict, as everyone works
together to solve society’s problems through science.

To conclude, in history, there have been very different societies in terms of their level of
development, levels of inequality, political organizations and cultural factors but only those six
types explain easily which stages we passed. Moreover, in today´s world almost all types of
societies exist but each of them approaches through post-industrial society even if they are not
and it is proved that how technology is important in shaping and characterizing society among
the economy, social inequalities and classes.
 39

Summary

Most developed form of human society.

Nation states.

Mega populations (metropolis).

Advanced technology in many fields.

Less than 10% of the population is involved in food production.

Very detailed division of labour. (Gender roles remain).

Enormous capacity to destroy other societies.

1.2 Social Groups – Definition, characteristics, classification of groups – primary,

secondary, In-group and Out-group.

Man is a social animal.

A completely isolated individual is purely hypothetical.

He rarely, if ever, exists alone.

His daily life is made up largely of participating in groups.

He begins his day as participating member of the family.

In his social life, he will have lot of experiences with various group relationships and which play
an important role in shaping personality.
Definition of social group

Social group is a collection of human beings. In its elementary sense, a group is a number of
units of everything in close proximity to one another.

Thus we may speak of a group of houses on a street, of trees in a forest or of buses in a bus
stand.

In human field, by group we mean “any collection of human beings, who are brought into social
relationships with one another”.

Sheriff and Sheriff- “a group is a social unit which consist of a number of individuals who stand
in (more or less) definite status and role relationships to one another and which possess a set of
values or norms of its own regulating the behaviour of individual members at least in matters of
consequence to the group”.

Bogardus- “a social group may be thought of as a number of persons two or more, who have
some common objects of attention, who are stimulating to each other, who have loyalty and
participate in similar activities”.

Williams- “a social group is a given aggregate of people, playing inter-related roles and
recognised by themselves or others as unit of interaction”.

Horton and Hunt- “groups are aggregate or categories of people who have consciousness of
membership and of interaction”.

Green and Arnold- “a group is an aggregate of individuals which persists in time, which has one
or more interests and activities in common, and which is organised”.
 40

Eldredge and Merrill- “a social group may be defined as two or more persons who are in
communication over an appreciable period of time and who act in accordance with a common
function or purpose”.

Turner and Killian- “a group always consists of people who are in interaction and whose
interaction is affected by the sense that they constitute a unit”.

Michael S. Oemsted- “a group may be defined as a plurality of individuals who are in contact
with one another, who take one another into account and who are aware of some significant
community”.

Bennet and Tumin- “a group is a number of people in definable and persisting interaction
directed towards common goals and using greed upon means”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff- “whenever two or more individuals come together and influence one
another, they may be said to constitute a social group”.

Gillin and Gillin- “a social group grows out and requires a situation which permits meaningful
inter-stimulation and meaningful response between the individuals involved, common focussing
of attention, common stimuli and, or interests and the development of certain common drives,
motivations or emotions”.

Social relationships involve, as we have seen, some degree of reciprocity between the related and
some degree of mutual awareness.

A social group is a collection of individuals, two or more, interacting on each other, which has
some common objects of attention and participate in similar activities. It may be a cricket club or
a political party. It ranges from a pair, a couple, to a group of millions of people. In an
aggregation the element of interaction is lacking and so it differs from group within which
observable interaction is present. The essence of social group is not physical closeness but a
consciousness of joint interaction. It is this aspect human interactivity which interests us most in
Sociology.
Characteristics of social group
Reciprocal relations.

Sense of unity.

We feeling.

Common interests.

Similar behaviour.

Group norms.

Difference between Group and Society

Group Society
A collection of human beings A system of social relationships
An artificial creation A natural growth
Membership is voluntary Membership is compulsory
Group is always organised Society may be unorganised
 41

A specific purpose General purposes

Marked by co-operation Marked by both co-operation and conflict

Group may be temporary Society is permanent

Difference between Group and Institution

Group Institution
Group is a collection of individuals Institution is a set of folkways and mores

Group is an artificial creation Institution is a natural growth

Group may be temporary Institution is comparatively permanent

Difference between Group and Community

Group Community
Group is an artificial creation Community is a natural growth
Group is formed to realise some specific Community includes the whole circle of social
purpose or purposes life
Membership of a group is voluntary Membership of a community is compulsory
Group is comparatively temporary Community is comparatively permanent
Group is a part of community Community is a whole

Classification of Groups

Social groups have been classified in various ways. While some thinkers have given a simple
classification, others have been given an elaborate classificatory scheme.

The German Sociologist Simmel considered size as a criterion for classifying groups. Since
individual with his societal conditionings is the most elementary unit of sociology, so he began
with the Nomad (the single person as a focus of group relationships), Dyad (the smaller
collectivities) and Triad (the large scale group).

Dwight Sanderson suggested three fold classifications of social groups by structure. He

classified them into involuntary (is based on kinship, such as family. A man has no choice to
what family he will belong), voluntary (man joins in his own volition. He agrees to a member of
it and is free to withdraw at any time from its membership), and delegate groups (a man joins as
a representative of a number of people either elected by them or nominated by some power.
Parliament is a delegate group).

C. H. Cooley classified groups on the basis of kind of contacts into primary (there is face-to-
face and intimate relationship, such as in family) and secondary (such as the state or political
party, the relationships are indirect, secondary or impersonal).
 42

F. H. Giddings classifies groups into genetic (genetic group is the family in which man born
involuntarily) and congregate (congregate group is the voluntary group into which he moves or
which he joins voluntarily. Social group may also be disjunctive (is one which does not allow a
person to be a member of other groups at same time. Example is a college or nation) or
overlapping (is one whose members also belong to other groups of the same type such as Indian
Sociological Society).

George Hasen classifies groups on the basis of their relations to other groups into unsocial (an
unsocial group is one which largely lives to itself and for itself and does not participate in the
larger society of which it is a part. It does not mix up with other groups and remains aloof from
them), pseudo-social (participates in larger social life, but mainly for its own gain and not for the
greater good) anti-social (that acts against the interest of society) and pro-social (it is reverse of
anti-social group. It works for the larger interest of society. It is engaged in constructive tasks
and concerned with increasing the welfare of all the people).

Miller divided social groups into horizontal (large, inclusive groups, such as nations, religious
organisations and political parties) and vertical groups (small divisions, such as economic
classes).

Charles A. Ellwood distinguished among involuntary and voluntary, institutional and non-
institutional and temporary and permanent groups.

Leopold classified human groups into crowds, groups and abstract collectivities.

Lewis Gillin and Philip Gillin classified groups on the basis of blood relationships, bodily
characteristics, physical proximity and culturally derived interests.

Park and Burgess distinguished between territorial and non-territorial group.

W. G. Sumner made distinction between an in-group and out-group. The groups with which
individual identifies himself are his in-groups, his family or tribe or sex or college or occupation
or religion by virtue of his awareness of likeness or consciousness of kind. An in-group acquires
its consciousness of being from the exclusion of some persons as well as the inclusion of other
persons. It embodies a collective pronoun “we”. In-group attitudes contain some element of
sympathy and a sense of attachment to the other members of the group. An out-group is defined
by individual with relation to the in-group, usually expressed in the contrast between “they” and
“we”. Every group is conscious that other groups are not with “us”.

Primary Group

C. H. Cooley has classified groups into primary and secondary. The primary group is nucleus of
all social organisations. It is a small group in which a small number of persons come into direct
contact with one another.

They meet “face to face” for mutual help, companionship and discussion of common questions.
They live in the presence and thought of one another.
 43

C. H. Cooley is the first Sociologist to draw the attention to primary groups, describes them as
“intimate face to face association and co-operation”.

The unity of primary group is not one of mere harmony and love.

It is always a differentiated and usually competitive unity, admitting of self-assertion and various
appropriate passions. These passions are socialised by sympathy and come or tend to come under
the discipline of the common spirit.

The most important spheres of the intimate association and co-operation are family, the play
group of children, and the neighbourhood or community group of elders.

These are practically universal belonging to all times and all stages of development and are
accordingly a chief basis of what is universal in human nature and in human ideals.

Cooley emphasised face to face association and the relationship of sympathy and mutual
identification i.e., “we feeling”.

It is in the possession of the “we feeling”, the quality of sympathy and mutual identification that
Cooley distinguishes the “primary” from the secondary group.

Characteristics of Primary Group

1. Physical proximity (Close relation).

2. Small size.

3. Stability.

4. Similarity of background.

5. Limited Self-interest.

6. Intensity of shared interest.

Importance of Primary Group for the individual: for spontaneous living, united in process and
provision of stimulus. It helps for socialisation, maintain social control, teach members to work
in society according to their roles.

Primary groups are the nucleus cells of social organisation, in which individual acquires basic
attitude towards people, social institutions and the world around him.

The attitudes of kindness, sympathy, love, tolerance, mutual help and sacrifice which provide a
cementing force to social structure are developed in the primary groups.

Their disintegration soon leads to social disintegration.

Primary Group Decisions

Primary group achieves consensus of opinion and reach an agreement in group by authority,
compromise, enumeration and integration. In any group authority may pronounce a decision and
 44

the members are asked to abide by it. This mode of group decision is practiced in small military
units or disciplined revolutionary party cell and also in the boss ruled gang or the patriarchal
families.

Sometimes the agreement in a group may be reached through compromise. The contending
members agree to yield some of their claims or waive their opinions in order to reach a
unanimous decision. The process here is that of bargaining, of give and take. The members get
something for giving up inasmuch as here the differences of the members do affect the decision,
while under the preceding method; the decision comes from the dominant authority involving no
more than the acquiescence of the other members. Compromise formula is quite common and is
frequently found in the group agreements reached by democratic families, clubs and many other
primary groups.

Enumeration: Decision may be taken in a group through the mode of voting. The members vote
on a particular issue and the majority decision carries a day. It is a determination by the majority.
The minority members remain in opposition but to save the group from the breaking up may
show their willingness to abide by the result of polls. If they are not willing to abide the group
runs the risk of being split up.

To get unity in the group the differences of the members are neither to be suppressed nor
compromised but by synthesized and harmonised. Integration of different opinions into
composite idea through the free admission of difference should be regarded as an ideal.

Secondary Group

A secondary group is one which is large in size such as a city, nation, political party, corporation,
international cartel and labour union.

Here human contact becomes superficial and undefined.

The relations of members are limited in scope and arrived at by much trial and error and in terms
of self-interest calculations of the members.

A member exerts only indirect influence over the other.

He knows personally only a very few of the other members and functions as one among almost
countless members.

His corporation with his fellow workers is indirect and very seldom comes face to face with
them.

He communicates with them by such indirect means as the written word.

Definitions of Secondary Group

P. H. Landis- “secondary groups are those that are relatively casual and impersonal in their
relationships…relationship in them are usually competitive rather than mutually helpful”.

Ogburn- “the groups which provide experience lacking in intimacy are called secondary groups”.
 45

Davis-”secondary groups can be roughly defined as the opposite of everything already said about
primary groups.”

Mazumdar H. T.-“when face to face contacts are not present in the relations of members, we
have secondary group”.

Characteristics of Secondary Group

Formal and impersonal relations.

Large in size.

Option of membership.

Active and inactive members.

Relations (hardly meet face to face, they are scattered throughout the world).

Formal rules.

Status of individual depends on his role.

Goal oriented.

Organisation of Authority in Secondary Group

Every secondary group, state or corporation is controlled by formal rules or laws which it cannot
violate. These rules are necessary in every large scale organisation for securing efficiency, order
and economy. These rules may become rigid with the passage of time not responding to the
needs of the individuals and changing situations. The secondary organisation falls into red
tapism and tends to grow stereotyped. This is what actually happens in governmental
organisations, political parties, large social service agencies and university administrations.
Vested interest grows in these institutions that resist any change in their organisation. The need
is of organising the authority in large organisations in such a way that some degree of liberty and
flexibility may be retained while securing order and efficiency.

Large scale organisations may be organised on two principles, federation (under this principle
the organisation is split into a number of local and regional units. In the political sphere, thus the
authority is divided among the centre and the states, the latter further subdividing their powers to
municipalities and other local bodies. Similarly, political parties assign various functions to their
local units who also enjoy certain degree of autonomy. In industrial sphere too the principle of
decentralisation finds its place, specialised functions being distributed to specialised units within
the industrial area or different areas. It also reconciles the claims of autonomy with authority.)
and official responsibility (this principle is of great importance with respect to the state, the most
powerful political organisation.)

Importance of Secondary Group

 46

The primary groups have an important place in a simple and small society but in modern era the
trend is towards secondary groups. The small communities have now given way to large
communities. In the place of cottage industry we have now giant corporations employing
thousands of people. Population has moved from village to the city. The changing trends of
modern society have swept away primary groups. People now depend for their needs secondary
groups than primary groups. The growth of secondary has relevance in our modern society.

Efficiency.

Channels of opportunity.

Wider outlook.

The nature of large-scale group is such that is it cannot satisfy man’s intimate cravings for
fellowship and sociality. To satisfy the desire of sociality men in large-scale organisations from
their clubs wherein they establish personal contacts and express their personality.

Charles H. Cooley has greatly emphasised the need of creating opportunities for spontaneous and
unrestricted expression of individual’s personality within the large groups.

Difference between primary and secondary group can be by size, kind of co-operation, types of
structure and relationship.

In-group and Out-group (W. G. Sumner’s Classification)

The individual belongs to a number of groups which are his in-groups; all other groups to which
he does not belong are his out-groups.

Thus the family, the tribe, the college to a person belongs are in his in-groups calling forth
similar attitudes and reactions in their members.

The members of such groups identify themselves with one another and with the group as a
whole.

In-groupness produces among them a sense of belonging together which is the core of group life.

The members of an in-group feel that their personal welfare is in some way or other bound up
with that of the other members of the group.

Between them there is always a considerable degree of sympathy.

In their relationship towards each other they display co-operation, good will, mutual help and
respect for one another’s rights. They possess a sense of solidarity, feeling of brotherhood and
readiness to sacrifice them for the group.

They would not like to hurt any member of the group nor would they like to be hurt by any other
member. Since any hurt to any member of an in-group, vicariously distresses all other members,
those members will be inclined to prevent such hurt.
 47

Since the pleasures of any member of an in-group gives some vicarious pleasure to all, each
member is inclined to do only such acts as will give pleasure to all other members.

Thus in-group is any association rather primary or secondary, towards which we have a sense of
solidarity, loyalty, friendliness and co-operation.

In-groupness sets the members of an in-group apart from all other groups. All these other people
constitute for the in-group members one or a number of out-groups.

An in-group acquires its consciousness of being from the exclusion of some persons as well as
from the inclusion of other persons. Its organisation is based on the elements of exclusion and
inclusion.

The members of the in-group signify their unity by the word “we” and other distinctiveness from
others by applying to those the term “they”.

The attitude of an individual towards out-group members is one of the antipathies which may
range in intensity from a mildly supercilious attitude to intense hatred.

Since the members of an in-group are sympathetic towards one another, therefore their treatment
towards in-group members differs from the treatment accorded to out-group members.

One of the best families will welcome as a daughter-in-law a girl from another of the best
families, but they may go so far as to disown the son who brings home as his bride a girl from
the other caste.

Sumner identifies ethnocentrism is a characteristic of in-group. He defined ethnocentrism as

“that view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything and others are scaled
and rated with reference to it.”

Out-group is defined by the individual with relation to the in-group. The out-group consists of
persons, whether formally organised or not, toward whom we feel a sense of indifference,
avoidance, disgust, competition or outright conflict.

The distinction between in-group and out-group is usually expressed in the contrast between
“we” and “they” or “other”. But the distinction between we and they is a matter of situational
definition. The individual belongs not to one group, but to many groups, but the memberships of
which are overlapping and are often confusing and contradictory.

As said above, individual belongs to a variety of groups; he may at once the member of a family,
a neighbourhood, a political party, a church, a union, a club or a class.

Although each group satisfies some or other aspect of his personality, yet these groups are not
necessarily complementary groups; indeed they are often conflicting.

Thus his membership of one group may lead him to do what is in violation of his membership in
some other group. In such cases, who constitutes his in-group and consequently, his out-group
 48

would depend not only on who he is but also on the circumstances of the moment. In short, an
individual’s group identification changes in circumstances.

Additional…

Reference Groups: When one finds another person progressing life, he also desires to progress
likewise. He compares himself with others and begins to behave like them in order to reach their
status and position. Such behaviour after comparison with others is called “reference behaviour”.
Under such behaviour one relates oneself to other individuals or groups and tries to adopt their
values and standards. The individuals or groups whose behaviour is imitated by him are known
as “reference groups”. Such imitation of behaviour is found among at both the individual and
group levels.

Spatial Groups are those which are constituted because of spatial contiguity of their members.
Such groups are the clan or sib, tribe and band. A clan or sib (unilateral and exogamous group) is
the group of individuals who believe themselves to be the common descendants of a real or
mythical ancestor. Band is the original form of local group which stands at the lowest level of
social organisation- that of migratory hunters.

1.3. Social Stratification – Origin of Stratification, Functions, Types – Caste,

Class, Estate.

In sociology, social stratification is a concept involving the "classification of people into groups
based on shared socio-economic conditions ... a relational set of inequalities with economic,
social, political and ideological dimensions." When differences lead to greater status, power or
privilege for some groups over the other it is called social stratification.

Stratification stands for the arrangement or classification or categorization of people or groups of

people in a society into various layers on the basis of social status. The term stratification was
originally derived from geology. In geological terms 'stratum' means layer and 'strata' means
layers. The term stratification refers to the structure of earth in terms of its natural properties as
revealed in its crests or layers. Social sciences have borrowed this term and applied it to the
arrangement of people in society.

Groups in a society are arranged in hierarchy depending upon its rank. All the people who
occupy the same status within a society occupy a single stratum. Status and stratum are
interlinked. Stratum is divided into units. Stratum implies equality, strata refers to inequality.

Stratification is a universal phenomenon, it occurs in every society. Such groupings may include:
economic status, prestige, culture, race, religion, age, gender or any other characteristic. It rests
on both social and psychological characteristics. Stratification is socially patterned or based on
collective elements. It is governed by norms and sanctions. Social stratification has its own
mechanisms of socialization. It is not static but dynamic. Stratification is a product of history.
All strata in a society are articulated in a systematic way with their function.

Social stratification is based on four major principles.
(1.) Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences.
 49

(2.) Social stratification persists over generations.

(3.) Social stratification is universal (it happens everywhere) but variable. (it takes different forms
across different societies)
(4.) Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well. (inequality is rooted in a
society's philosophy)
Definitions of Stratification:

Raymond W. Murray- “Social stratification is a horizontal division of society into higher and
lower social units”.

Even primitive societies had some forms of social stratification. As Sorokin pointed out, “un-
stratified society with real equality of its members is myth which has never been realized in the
history of mankind”. He writes “social stratification means the differentiation of a given
population into hierarchically superimposed classes. It is manifested in the existence of upper
and lower layer. Its basis and very essence consists in an unequal distribution of rights and
privileges, duties and responsibilities, social values and privations, social power and influences
among the members of a society”.

Gisbert- “social stratification is division of society into permanent groups or strategies linked
with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordination”.

John F. Cuber and William F. Kenkel- regarded it as “a pattern of superimposed status of a
person or a group of persons in society with the result that there comes to exist people, high or
low, superior or inferior”.

Kurt B. Mayer- “social stratification is a system of differentiation which includes a hierarchy of
social positions whose occupants are treated as superior, equal, or inferior relative to one another
in socially important respects”.

Lundberg writes “a stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people
that are evaluated by them as being lower and higher”.

Williams defines social stratification as the ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority-
equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation”.

Stratification is a process of ranking statuses which is found in all societies.

In modern Western societies, stratification is broadly organized into three main layers: upper
class, middle class, and lower class. Each of these classes can be further subdivided into smaller
classes (e.g. occupational).

These categories are not particular to state-based societies as distinguished from feudal societies
composed of nobility-to-peasant relations. Stratification may also be defined by kinship ties or
castes. For Max Weber, social class pertaining broadly to material wealth is distinguished from
status class which is based on such variables as honour, prestige and religious affiliation. Talcott
Parsons argued that the forces of societal differentiation and the following pattern of
institutionalized individualization would strongly diminish the role of class (as a major
stratification factor) as social evolution went along.

It is debatable whether the earliest hunter-gatherer groups may be defined as 'stratified', or if

such differentials began with agriculture and broad acts of exchange between groups. One of the
ongoing issues in determining social stratification arises from the point that status inequalities
 50

between individuals are common, so it becomes a quantitative issue to determine how much
inequality qualifies as stratification.

Social impact: Research suggests that social stratification can cause many social problems. A
comprehensive study of major world economies revealed that homicide, prison population, infant
mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression, teen suicide, and overall health
inequity all correlate with higher social inequality.

Three characteristics of stratified systems are...

(1.) The rankings apply to social categories of people who share a common characteristic without
necessarily interacting or identifying with each other. The process of being ranked can be
changed by the person being ranked. Example: The way we rank people differently by race,
gender, and social class.

(2.) People's life experiences and opportunities depend on their social category. This characteristic can be
changed by the amount of work a person can put into their interests. Example: The greater advantage
had by the son or daughter of a king to have a successful life than the son or daughter of a
minimum-wage factory worker, because the king has a greater amount of resources than the
factory worker. The use of resources can influence others.

(3.) The ranks of different social categories change slowly over time. This has occurred frequently in
the United States ever since the American Revolution. The US Constitution has altered several
times to specify the rights for everyone.

 Inequality of status or rank differentiation is distinguishing features of social stratification.

Where there is a social stratification, there is social inequality.

 The amount or type of prestige attached to different positions need not be same in all societies.

 Stratification tends to restrict interaction, so that there is more interaction of a given sort within
strata than between strata.

Origin of Stratification:

Gumblowics, Oppenheimer and other sociologists contended that its origin is to be found in the
conquest of one group by another. The conquering group set itself as an upper class dominating
the conquered class which become lower class. Cecil North also considered that conquest of one
group by another to be highly conducive to the appearance of privilege. He even asserted that
“no permanent and divisions of class appeared so long as a peaceful mode of life was
maintained”. Sorokin was of the opinion was conflict may be regarded as facilitating
stratification, but not as originating it. Stratification is found in all the societies peaceful as well
as warlike. He attributed social stratification mainly to inherited individual differences and
differences in environmental conditions.

Racial differences accompanied by cultural dissimilarity also lead to stratification. India was
subjected to the series of racial and cultural invasions that overwhelmed the native people and
eventually lead to caste system. Race is the chief factor in the American stratification system.
 51

According to Spenglar, stratification is found upon scarcity. Short supply or scarcity is created
whenever society differentiates positions in terms of functions and powers and assigns rights and
privileges to them. This makes some positions more desirable than others for society grades them
by their rewards. There are only a few corporation presidencies or government executive offices
available. Stratification evolves from the allocation of scarce privileges and powers.

Kingsley Davis lays emphasis on the functional necessity of stratification. According to him a
society must provide some rewards which it can use as inducements and have some way of
distributing these rewards differently according to position. The rewards and their distribution, as
attached to social positions, create social stratification. These rewards may be in the form of
economic incentives, aesthetic incentives and symbolic incentives (contributed to self respect
and ego expansion). The differentiation of rewards produces social inequality. According to
Davis, social inequality is an unconsciously evolved device by which societies insure that the
most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons. Hence every
society must possess a certain amount of institutionalised inequality or social stratification.

The functional account of social stratification is not accepted by other sociologists. According to
them, a system of stratification continues to exist because the members of society who are in the
highest strata want the system to continue unchanged. Power, not functional necessity, is the key
to understand stratification. Chiefs, kings, aristocrats or the upper class all have the same
interest; to secure their position, to discourage outsiders and thereby to control power relations so
completely that they alone determine who can enter their circle. Functional necessity is therefore,
really elite control.

Social stratification assumes the form of class divisions in society. In the course of history,
various social classes have existed at different periods. Thus the slaves and slave masters, vassals
and feudal lords, capitalists and workers have been in the prominent classes. In India class has
assumed a peculiar form in caste. Since social stratification means division of society into social
classes.

The functions of Social Stratification are…

(1.) To maintain social order.

(2.) To ensure that all roles are filled.

(3.) Roles are filled by those best suited to efficiently execute them.

The glimpse of the cultures of the world reveals that no society is ‘classless’, that is, un-
stratified. All the known established societies of the world are stratified in one way or the other.

According to Wilbert Moore and Kingsley Davis, stratification system came to be evolved in all
the societies due to the functional necessity. As they have pointed out the main functional
necessity of the system is: “the requirement faced by any society of placing and motivating
individuals in the social structure Social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by
which societies ensure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most
qualified persons”.
 52

As analysed by H.M. Johnson certain things here can be noted about the “functional necessity”
of class stratification system.
(1.) Encourages hard work: One of the main functions of class stratification is to induce people to
work hard to live up to values. Those who best fulfil the values of a particular society are
normally rewarded with greater prestige and social acceptance by others. It is known that
occupations are ranked high if their functions are highly important and the required personnel are
very scarce. Hard work, prolonged training and heavy burden of responsibility are associated
with such occupational positions. People undertaking such works are rewarded with money,
prestige comforts, etc. Still we cannot say that all those positions which are regarded as
important are adequately compensated for.
(2.) Ensures circulation of elites: To some extent class stratification helps to ensure what is often
called “the circulation of the elite”. When a high degree of prestige comforts and other rewards
are offered for certain positions, there will be some competition for them. This process of
competition helps to ensure that the more efficient people are able to rise to the top, where their
ability can best be used.
(3.) Serves an economic function: The competitive aspect has a kind of economic function in that it
helps to ensure the rational use of available talent. It is also functionally necessary to offer
differential rewards if the positions at the top are largely ascribed as it is in the case of caste
system. Even in caste system the people at the top can lose their prestige if they fail to maintain
certain standards. Hence differential rewards provide the incentives for the upper classes to work
at maintaining their positions.
(4.) Prevents waste of resources: The stratification system prevents the waste of scarce resources.
The men in the elite class actually possess scarce and socially valued abilities and qualities,
whether these are inherited or acquired. Because of their possession of these qualities their
enjoyment of some privileges such as extra comfort and immunity from doing menial work, are
functionally justified. It becomes functionally beneficial for the society to make use of their
talents without being wasted. For Example, it would be a waste to pour the resources of society
into the training of doctors and engineers, and then making them to work as peons and
attendants. When once certain individuals are chosen and are trained for certain difficult
positions it would be dysfunctional to waste their time and energy on tasks for which there is
enough manpower.
(5.) Stabilises and reinforces the attitudes and skills: Members of a class normally try to limit their
relations to their own class. More intimate relationships are mostly found between fellow class-
members. Even this tendency has its own function. It tends to stabilise and reinforce the attitudes
and skills that may be the basis of upper-class position. Those who have similar values and
interests tend to associate comfortably with one another. Their frequent association itself
confirms their common values and interests.
(6.) Helps to pursue different professions or jobs: The values, attitudes and qualities of different
classes do differ. This difference is also functional for society to some extent. Because society
needs manual as well as non-manual workers. Many jobs are not attractive to highly trained or
‘refined’ people for they are socialised to aspire for certain other jobs. Because of the early
 53

influence of family and socialisation the individuals imbibe in them certain values, attitudes and
qualities relevant to the social class to which they belong. This will influence their selection of
jobs.
(7.) Social Control: Further, to the extent that ‘lower class’ cultural characteristics are essential to
society, the classes are, of course, functional. In fact, certain amount of mutual antagonism be-
tween social classes is also functional. To some extent, upper-class and lower-class groups can
act as negative reference groups for each other. Thus they act as a means of social control also.
(8.) Controlling effect on the ‘shady’ world: Class stratification has another social control function.
Even in the ‘shady’ world of gamblers and in the underworld of lower criminals, black-
marketers, racketeers, smugglers, etc., the legitimate class structure has got respectability. They
know that money is not a substitute for prestige but only a compensation for renouncing it.
Hence instead of continuing in a profitable shady career, such people want to gain respectability
for their money and for their children. They try to enter legitimate fields and become
philanthropists and patrons of the arts. Thus the legitimate class structure continues to attract the
shady classes and the underworld. This attraction exerts a social control function.
Sociological overview of Stratification

The concept of social stratification is interpreted differently by the various theoretical

perspectives of sociology. Proponents of action theory have suggested that since social
stratification is commonly found in developed societies, hierarchy may be necessary in order to
stabilize social structure. Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist, asserted that stability and
social order are regulated, in part, by universal value although universal values were not identical
with "consensus" but could as well be the impetus for ardent conflict as it had been multiple
times through history. Parsons never claimed that universal values in and by themselves
"satisfied" the functional prerequisites of a society, indeed, the constitution of society was a
much more complicated codification of emerging historical factors.

The so-called conflict theories, such as Marxism, point to the inaccessibility of resources and
lack of social mobility found in stratified societies. Many sociological theorists have criticized
the extent to which the working classes are unlikely to advance socioeconomically; the wealthy
tend to hold political power which they use to exploit the proletariat inter-generationally.
Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf, however, have noted the tendency toward an enlarged
middle-class in modern Western societies due to the necessity of an educated workforce in
technological and service economies. Various social and political perspectives concerning
globalization, such as dependency theory, suggest that these effects are due to the change of
workers to the third world.

In Marxist theory, the capitalist mode of production consists of two main economic parts: the
substructure and the superstructure. Marx saw classes as defined by people's relationship to the
means of productions in two basic ways: either they own productive property or labour for
others. The base comprehends the relations of production—employer–employee work
conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations—into which people enter to
produce the necessities and amenities of life. In the capitalist system, the ruling classes own the
means of production, which essentially include the working class itself as they have their own
 54

labour power ('wage labour') to offer in order to survive. These relations fundamentally
determine the ideas and philosophies of a society, constituting the superstructure. A temporary
status quo is achieved by various methods of social control employed, consciously or
unconsciously, by the bourgeoisie in the course of various aspects of social life. Through the
ideology of the ruling class, false consciousness is promoted both through ostensibly political
and non-political institutions, but also through the arts and other elements of culture. Marx
believed the capitalist mode would eventually give way, through its own internal conflict, to
revolutionary consciousness and the development of egalitarian communist society. Marx also
described two other classes, the petite bourgeoisie and the lumpen-proletariat. The petite
bourgeoisie is like a small business class that never really accumulates enough profit to become
part of the bourgeoisie, or even challenge their absolute power. The lumpenproletariat is the low
life part of the proletariat class. This includes prostitutes, beggars, swindlers, etc. Neither of
these subclasses has much influence in Marx's two class system, but it is helpful to know that
Marx did recognize differences within the classes.

According to Marvin Harris and Tim Ingold Lewis Henry Morgan's accounts of egalitarian
hunter-gatherers formed part of Karl Marx and Engels's inspiration for communism. Morgan
spoke of a situation in which people living in the same community pooled their efforts and
shared the rewards of those efforts fairly equally. He called this "communism in living." But
when Marx expanded on these ideas, he still emphasized an economically oriented culture, with
property defining the fundamental relationships between people. Yet, issues of ownership and
property are arguably less emphasized in hunter-gatherer societies. This, combined with the very
different social and economic situations of hunter-gatherers may account for many of the
difficulties encountered when implementing communism in industrialized states. As Ingold
points out: "The notion of communism, removed from the context of domesticity and harnessed
to support a project of social engineering for large-scale, industrialized states with populations of
millions, eventually came to mean something quite different from what Morgan had intended:
namely, a principle of redistribution that would override all ties of a personal or familial nature,
and cancel out their effects."

Max Weber was strongly influenced by Marx's ideas, but rejected the possibility of effective
communism, arguing that it would require an even greater level of detrimental social control and
bureaucratization than capitalist society. Moreover, Weber criticized the dialectical presumption
of proletariat revolt, believing it to be unlikely. Instead, he developed the three-component
theory of stratification and the concept of life chances. Weber supposed there were more class
divisions than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from both functionalist and Marxist
theories to create his own system. He emphasized the difference between class, status, and
power, and treated these as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on
social action. Working at half a century later than Marx, Weber claimed there to be in fact four
main classes: the upper class, the white collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and the manual
working class. Weber's theory more-closely resembles contemporary Western class structures,
although economic status does not currently seem to depend strictly on earnings in the way
Weber envisioned. Weber derived many of his key concepts on social stratification by examining
the social structure of Germany. He noted that contrary to Marx's theories, stratification was
 55

based on more than simply ownership of capital. Weber examined how many members of the
aristocracy lacked economic wealth yet had strong political power. Many wealthy families
lacked prestige and power, for example, because they were Jewish. Weber introduced three
independent factors that form his theory of stratification hierarchy, which are; class, status, and
power:

(1.) Class: A person's economic position in a society, based on birth and individual achievement.
Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme factor in stratification.
Weber noted how corporate executives control firms they typically do not own; Marx would
have placed these people in the proletariat despite their high incomes by virtue of the fact they
sell their labour instead of owning capital.

(2.) Status: A person's prestige, social honour, or popularity in a society. Weber noted that
political power was not rooted in capital value solely, but also in one's individual status. Poets or
saints, for example, can have extensive influence on society despite few material resources.

(3.) Power: A person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For example,
individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a
member of the United States Congress, may hold little property or status but still wield
considerable power.

C. Wright Mills contended that the imbalance of power in society derives from the complete
absence of countervailing powers against corporate leaders of the power elite”. Mills both
incorporated and revised Marxist ideas. While he shared Marx’s recognition of a dominant
wealthy and powerful class, Mills believed that the source for that power lay not only in the
economic realm but also in the political and military arenas. During the 1950s, Mills stated that
hardly anyone knew about the power elite's existence, some individuals (including the elite
themselves) denied the idea of such a group, and other people vaguely believed that a small
formation of a powerful elite existed. "Some prominent individuals knew that Congress had
permitted a handful of political leaders to make critical decisions about peace and war; and that
two atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan in the name of the United States, but neither they
nor anyone they knew had been consulted." Mills sought to inform people about the existence of
the power elite through his book “The power elite”. Mills explained that the power elite
embodied a privileged class whose members were able to recognize their high position within
society. In order to maintain their highly exalted position within society, members of the power
elite tend to marry one another, understand and accept one another, and they also work together.
The most crucial aspect of the power elite's existence lies within the core of education. "Youthful
upper-class members attend prominent preparatory schools, which not only open doors to such
elite universities as Harward, Yale and Princeston but also to the universities' highly exclusive
clubs. These memberships in turn pave the way to the prominent social clubs located in all major
cities and serving as sites for important business contacts." Examples of elite members who
attended prestigious universities and were members of highly exclusive clubs can be seen in
George W. Bush and John Kerry. Both Bush and Kerry were members of the Skull and Bones
club while attending Yale University. This club includes members of some of the most powerful
men of the twentieth century, all of which are forbidden to tell others about the secrets of their
 56

exclusive club. Throughout the years, the Skull and Bones club has included presidents, cabinet
officers, Supreme Court justices, spies, captains of industry, and often their sons and daughters
join the exclusive club, creating a social and political network like none ever seen before.

The upper class individuals who receive elite educations typically have the essential background
and contacts to enter into the three branches of the power elite: The political leadership, the
military circle, and the corporate elite. The Political Leadership: Mills stated that prior to the end
of World War II, leaders of corporations became more prominent within the political sphere,
with a decline in central decision-making among professional politicians.

The Military Circle: During the 1950s-1960s, increasing concerns about warfare existed,
resulting in top military leaders and issues involving defence funding and military personnel
training becoming a top priority within the United States. Most of the prominent politicians and
corporate leaders were strong proponents of military spending.

The Corporate Elite: Mills explains that during the 1950s, when the military emphasis was
recognized, corporate leaders worked with prominent military officers who dominated the
development of policies. Corporate leaders and high-ranking military officers were mutually
supportive of each other.

Mills believed that the power elite has an "inner-core" that was made up of individuals who were
able to move from one position of institutional power to another; a prominent military officer
who becomes a political adviser or a powerful politician who becomes a corporate executive.
"These people have more knowledge and a greater breadth of interests than their colleagues.
Prominent bankers and financiers, who Mills considered 'almost professional go-betweens of
economic, political, and military affairs,' are also members of the elite's inner core.

Anthropologists have found that social stratification is not the standard among all societies. John
Gowdy writes, "Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe
to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social
stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples." Non-stratified egalitarian
or acephalous ("headless") societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy,
political or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership.

Anthropologists identify egalitarian cultures as "kinship-oriented," because they appear to value

social harmony more than wealth or status. These cultures are contrasted with economically
oriented cultures (including states) in which status and material wealth are prized, and
stratification, competition, and conflict are common. Kinship-oriented cultures actively work to
prevent social hierarchies from developing because they believe that such stratification could
lead to conflict and instability. Reciprocal altruism is one process by which this is accomplished.

A good example is given by Richard Borshay Lee in his account of the Khoisan, who practices
"insulting the meat." Whenever a hunter makes a kill, he is ceaselessly teased and ridiculed (in a
friendly, joking fashion) to prevent him from becoming too proud or egotistical. The meat itself
is then distributed evenly among the entire social group, rather than kept by the hunter. The level
of teasing is proportional to the size of the kill. Lee found this out when he purchased an entire
 57

cow as a gift for the group he was living with, and was teased for weeks afterward about it (since
obtaining that much meat could be interpreted as showing off).

Types of Social Stratification – Caste, Class, Estate

Caste System

The caste system, the joint family system and the village system of life – are often regarded as
the three basic pillars of the Indian social System. The caste system as a form of social
stratification is peculiar to India. The caste is an inseparable aspect of the India society. It is
peculiarly Indian in origin and development. There is no comparable institution elsewhere in the
world for the case system. Still traces of caste were found in Ancient Egypt, Japan, Rome,
Burma and Persia. It is said that even the ancient Persians, Siberians, Etruscans, Mexicans,
Peruvians and Spartans had their own type of caste system. Some systems resembling caste are
found at present in Burma, Polynesia, Massai and Somali of East Horn. But the caste system
which we understand today with all its peculiarities is found India alone.

Definition of Caste System:

‘Caste’ is so complex a phenomenon which is difficult to define. Writers and thinkers are not
unanimous in their opinion regarding caste, its definition and characteristics. Hence caste has
been defined variously.

Sir Herbert Risely: Caste is a “collection of families, bearing a common name, claiming a
common descent, from a mythical ancestor, human and divine, professing to follow the same
hereditary calling and regarded by those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a
single homogeneous community”.

Maclver and Page: “When status is wholly predetermined so that men are born to their lot
without any hope of changing it, then the class takes the extreme form of caste”.

C.H. Cooley: “When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary, we may call it a caste”.

A.W. Green: “Caste is a system of stratification in which mobility up and down the status
ladder, at least ideally may not occur”.

Ketkar: “A caste is a group having two characteristics; (i) membership is confined to those who
are born of members and includes all persons so born, (ii) the members are forbidden by an
inexorable social law to marry outside the group”.

D. N. Majumdar and T.N. Madan have said that caste is a ‘closed group’.

Characteristics of Caste System:

 58

The caste system is highly complex in nature. As Dr. G.S. Ghurye says, any attempt to define
caste is “bound to fail because of the complexity of the phenomenon”. He describes the
characteristics of caste in his ‘Caste and Class in India’ – 1950-56 [also in his Caste, Class and
Occupation – 1961 and Caste and Race in India – 1970]. The following have been the main
traditional features of the caste system.
(1.) Caste – As a hierarchical division of society. The Hindu society is gradational one. It is divided
into several small groups called castes and sub castes. A sense of ‘highness’ and ‘lowness’ or
‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ is associated with this gradation or ranking. The Brahmins are
placed at the top of the hierarchy and are regarded as ‘pre’, supreme or superior. The degraded
caste or the so called ‘untouchables’ [Harijans] have occupied the other end of the hierarchy. All
over India neither the supremacy of the Brahmins nor the degraded position of the Harijans or
‘outcastes’ has been questioned. It is taken for granted, but regarding the exact position of the
intermediary castes there are disputes on the part of the members.
(2.) Caste – As a Segmental Division of Society. The Hindu society is a caste-ridden society. It is
divided into a number of segments called ‘castes’. It is not a homogeneous society. Castes are
groups with defined boundary of their own. The status of an individual is determined by his
birth and not by selection nor by accomplishments. No amount of power, prestige and pelf can
change the position of man. The membership of the caste is hence unchangeable, unacquirable,
inalienable, unattainable and non-transferable. Further, each caste in a way has its own way of
life. Each caste has its own customs, traditions, practices and rituals. It has its own informal
rules, regulations and procedures. They were caste councils or ‘caste panchayats to regulate the
conduct of members also. The caste used to help its members when they were found in
distress. Indeed, ‘the caste was its own ruler’.
Caste Panchayat

During the early days in every village every caste used to have its own caste Panchayat. It
consisted of five chosen members who enjoyed much social privilege and respect. The caste
panchayat used to perform a number of functions. It used to make the members comply with
caste rules and regulations. Setting caste disputes and giving its final verdict on the issues
referred to it, were also its other functions. It was giving punishments to those who violated
caste rules and obligations. Matters such as – breaking the marriage promise, refusal on the part
of the husband to take the wife to his house, cruelty to wife, adultery on the part of wife, killing
the cows, insulting the Brahmins, having illicit sex relations with other case people, etc., were
dealt with by the panchayat. It was giving punishments such as – arranging dinner party for the
fellow caste-men, imposing fine, purification, pilgrimage, out casting etc., for the offenders. The
caste panchayat was also striving to promote the welfare of the caste members. Safeguarding the
interests of the caste members was yet another function of the panchayat. These caste
panchayats have become weak and ineffective nowadays.

The castes and sub castes together make up the Hindu social system. Still in some respects each
is isolated from the other. It is in a way semisoverign. The castes are a ‘complete world’ in
themselves for their members. The members are expected to be loyal to the caste. Caste feeling
is hence, very strong. It is very much stronger in rural areas than in the urban areas. It is
because of this the amount of community-feeling is restricted.
 59

(3.) Restrictions on Food Habits. The caste system has imposed certain restrictions on the food
habits of the members, they differ from caste to caste. Who should accept what kind of food and
from whom? – is often decided by the caste. For example, in North India, a Brahmin would
accept ‘pakka’ food [cooked in ghee] only from some castes lower than his own. But he would
accept ‘kachcha’ food [prepared with the use of water] at the hands of no other caste except his
own. As a matter of rule and practice, no individuals would accept ‘kachcha’ food prepared by
an inferior caste man. Generally, any kind of food that is prepared by the Brahmins is acceptable
to all the caste people. This factor explains as to why the Brahmin dominated the hotel industry
for a long time. Further, restrictions are also there still on the use of certain vegetables for
certain castes. Even today, some traditional Brahmins do not consume onions, garlic, cabbage,
carrot, beetroot etc. Eating beef is not allowed except for the Harijans.
(4.) Restrictions on social relations. The caste system puts restrictions on the range of social
relations also. The idea of ‘pollution’ makes this point clear. It means a touch of a lower case
man (particularly Harijan) would pollute or defile a man of higher caste. Even his shadow is
considered enough to pollute a higher caste man. In Kerala for a long time, a Nayar could
approach a Nambudari Brahmin but would not touch him. Further, a Tiyan was expected to keep
himself at a distance of 36 steps from the Brahmin and a pulaya at a distance of 96 paces. In
Tamilnadu the shanar today tapper was expected to keep a distance of 24 paces while
approaching a Brahmin. This has resulted in the practice of untouchability. This practice has
made the lower caste people to be segregated completely from the higher caste.
(5.) Social and Religious Disabilities of certain castes. In the traditional caste society some lower
caste people [particularly, the Harijans] suffered from certain civil or social and religious
disabilities. Generally, the impure castes are made to live on the outskirts of the city or the
village. In South India, certain parts of the towns or the villages are not accessible to the
Harijans. It is recorded that during the Peshwa rule in Maharashtra the Mahars and Mangs were
not allowed within the gates of Poona before 9.00 A.M. and after 3.00 P.M. The reason was
during the time their bodies would cast too long shadows, which, if they were to fall on the
Brahmins, would defile them.
Socially, Harijans or so colled ‘untouchables’ are separated from other members. Even today, in
many places they are not allowed to draw water from the public wells. During the early days,
public places like hotels, public lecture halls, schools, temples, theatres were not kept open for
the lower case people. Entrance to temples and other places of religious importance was
forbidden for them. Educational facilities, legal rights and political representation were denied
to them for a long time. In South India, restrictions were placed on the mode of constructing
houses of the lower caste people, and their types of dresses and patterns of ornamentation. The
toddy-tappers of Malabar were not allowed to carry umbrellas, to wear shoes or golden
ornaments and to milk cows. They were forbidden to cover the upper part of their body.
(6.) The Civil and Religious Privileges of Certain Castes. If the lower caste people suffer from
certain disabilities, some higher caste people like the Brahmins enjoy certain
privileges. Nowhere the Brahmins suffered from the disabilities cited above. They are given
more liberty, because they are believed to be born ‘pure’ and ‘superior’. The Brahmins never
saluted others, but they always had the privilege of being saluted by others. They never even
 60

bowed to the idols of the lower caste people. Education and teaching were almost the monopoly
of the higher caste people. Chanting the Vedic Mantras was great privilege of the
Brahmins. The upper caste people in general, enjoyed social, political, legal and religious
privileges.
(7.) Restrictions on Occupational Choice. In the caste-ridden society there is a gradation of
occupations also. Some occupations are considered to be superior and sacred while certain
others degrading and inferior. For a long time, occupations were very much associated with the
caste system. Each caste had its own specific occupations were almost hereditary.
Weaving, shoe-making, oil-grinding, sweeping, scavenging, curing, hides tanning, washing
clothes, barbering, pottery, etc., were considered to be somewhat ‘degrading’. Learning,
priesthood, teaching were the prestigious professions which mostly the Brahmins pursued. But
agriculture, trade and labouring in the field were thrown open to all the castes. At the same time,
no caste would allow its members to take up to any profession which was either degrading or
impure.
(8.) Restrictions on Marriage. The caste system imposes restrictions on marriage also. Caste is an
endogamous group. Endogamy is a rule of marriage according to which an individual has to
marry within his or her group. Each caste is subdivided into several sub castes, which are again
endogamous. For example, Iyers, Iyengars, Smarthas, Madhvas, Having Brahmins, Kota,
Shivalli, Kandavara Brahmins, etc., are all Brahmin sub castes which are
endogamous. Similarly, the Vokkaliga caste consists of Morasu, Hallikar, Nonaba, Gangadiga
and other sub castes. According to the rule of endogamy a Shivalli Brahmin, for example, has to
marry a Shivalli girl, an Iyengar, an Iyengar girl and so on. Inter caste marriages were strictly
forbidden them. Even at present, inter caste marriages have not become popular. Violation of
the rule of endogamy was strictly dealt with during the early days. The rule of endogamy has
resulted in close in-breeding. Some writers like Hutton have regarded endogamy as the very
essence of the caste system. Exception to this rule of endogamy is seen in places like the hill
parts of Punjab and also in Malabar. The Caste provides for some kind of exogamous marriages
also. They can briefly examined here.
Sapinda and Sagotra Exogamy. Sapinda and Sagotra marriages have been generally forbidden
by the upper castes and Sapinda and Sagotra exogamous marriages have been insisted upon.
Sapinda Exogamy. In Hindu society marriage within the ‘Pinda’ is prohibited. Pinda means
common parentage. According to Brahaspathi, off springs from five maternal generations and
seven paternal generations are ‘Sapinda’ and they cannot intermarry. This opinion, however, is
not universally accepted. Though certain exceptions are there in South India, in North India,
generally, Sapinda marriages do not take place. But Sapinda exogamy, that is, marrying outside
one’s pinda is commonly found.
Sagotra Exogamy. Sagotra exogamy, that is, marrying outside one’s own ‘gotra’ is very much
prevalent among the upper caste such as Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Marriage within the gotra is
prohibited. This restriction has been imposed since people of one gotra are believed to have
similar blood. Similarly, Sapravara marriages are also forbidden especially for the
Brahmins. Persons belonging to the same pravara cannot intermarry. People who utter the name
 61

of a common saint at religious functions are believed to belong to the same pravara. The pravara
is a kind of religious and spiritual bond. Sapravara exogamy, that is marrying outside one’s own
pravara, has been imposed as a rule for the upper castes, especially for the Brahmins.
Caste is Embedded in the Indian Social Structure

Caste is closely connected with the Hindu philosophy and religion, custom and tradition,
marriage and family, morals and manners, food and dress habits, occupations and hobbies. The
caste system is believed to have had a divine origin and sanction. It is endlessly supported by
rituals and ceremonies. It is a deep-rooted and a long-lasting social institution of India. India is
a classical land of the caste. It is here, in India, we find more than 2800 castes and sub-castes
with all their peculiarities. Of these, the major caste (previously known as varnas) such as
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras (or depressed caste) are found in almost all the
states. But none of these castes is numerically dominant in any of the states of India.
The Origin of the Word ‘Caste”

The term ‘caste’ is derived from the Spanish (also Portuguese) word ‘casta’ meaning ‘breed’,
‘strain’, ‘lineage’ or ‘hereditary qualities’. The Portuguese used the term ‘caste’ first to denote
the divisions Indian caste system. The world ‘caste’ also signifies ‘race’ or ‘kind’. The Sanskrit
word for caste is ‘Varna’ which means ‘colour’. Races and colour seem to be the bases of Indian
caste in addition to the division of labour and occupation. The popular equivalent of caste is
‘Jati’.
The Origin of the Caste System

The caste stratification of the Indian Society had had its origin in the ‘Chaturvarna’
system. According to the Chaturvarna doctrine, the Hindu society was divided into four main
varnas namely the Brahmins, the Kashtriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Varna system
which was prevalent during the Vedic period was mainly based on the division of labour and
occupation. The Caste system owes its origin to the Varna system. The present caste system can
be said to be degenerated form of the original Varna system. Varnas which were four in number
and castes which are found in hundreds and thousands are not one and the same.

The exact origin of caste system cannot be traced. The system is said to have originated in India.
The records of the Indo-Aryan culture contain the first mention and a continuous history of the
factors that make up caste. The people who are known as Indo-Aryans belong linguistically to
the larger family of people designated either as Indo-Europeans or as Indo-Germans. They
comprised the Anglo-Saxons, the Celts, the Romans, the Spanish, Portuguese and the Iranian
among others. One of the branches of the people which reached India about 2500 B. C. is called
Indo-Aryans.
(1.) Racial theory: According to Dr. Mazumdar, the caste system took birth after the arrival of
Aryans in India. In order to maintain their separate existence the Indo-Aryans used for certain
groups and orders of people the favourite word “varna”, “colour”. The Rigvedic literature
stresses very significantly the differences between the Arya and Dasa, not only their colour, but
also in their speech, religious practices and physical features.
 62

(2.) Political theory: According to this theory caste system is a cleaver device invented by the
Brahmins in order to place themselves on the highest ladder of social hierarchy. Dr. G. S.
Ghurye states “caste is a Brahmanic child of Indo-Aryan Culture cradled in the land of the
Ganges and thence transferred to other parts of India”.
(3.) Occupational theory: According to this theory, the origin of caste system can be found in the
nature and quality of social work performed by the various groups of people. These professions
which were regarded as better and respectable made the persons who performed them superior to
those who were engaged in dirty professions. According to Nesfield “function and function alone
is responsible for the origin of caste structure in India”.
(4.) Traditional theory: According to this theory, caste system is of divine origin. There are some
references in Vedic literature, wherein it is said that castes were created by Brahma, the supreme
creator, so that human beings may harmoniously perform the various social functions essential
for the maintenance of society. According to Dr. Mazumdar, “if, however we take the Divine
origin of the Varnas as an allegorical explanation of the functional division of society, the theory
assumes practical significance.
(5.) Guild theory: According to Denzil Ibbetson “castes are the modified forms of guilds. In his
opinion, caste system is the product of interaction of three forces: 1. tribes, 2. Guilds, 3.
Religion. The tribes adopted certain fixed professions and assumed the form of guilds. In ancient
India, the priests enjoyed greater prestige. They were hereditary and endogamous groups. The
other guilds also adopted the same practices and in course of time became castes.
(6.) Religious theory: Hocart and Senart are the two main advocates of religious theory. According to
Hocart, social stratification originated on account of religious principles and customs. In ancient
India religion had a prominent role. The king was considered the image of God. The priest kings
accorded different positions to different functional groups. Senart has tried to explain the origin
of caste system on the basis of prohibitions regarding sacramental food. He holds that on account
of different family duties there grew up certain prohibitions regarding sacramental food. The
followers of one particular deity considered themselves the descendants of the same ancestor and
offered a particular kind of food as offering to their deity. Those who believed in the same deity
considered themselves as different from those who believed in some other deity.
(7.) Evolutionary theory: According to this theory caste system is the result of a long process of
social evolution. A number of factors played their part in the development of the present caste
system. They are..
a) Hereditary occupations.
b) The desire of Brahmins to keep themselves pure.
c) The lack of rigid unitary control of the state.
d) The unwillingness of the rulers to enforce a uniform standard of law and custom and their
readiness to recognise the varying customs of different groups as valid.
e) Beliefs in re-incarnation and doctrine of Karma.
f) Ideas of exclusive family, ancestor worship and the sacramental meal.
 63

g) Clash of antagonistic cultures particularly of the patriarchal and the matriarchal systems.
h) Clash of races, colour prejudices and conquests.
i) Deliberate economic and administrative policies followed by the various conquerors particularly
by the British.
j) Geographical isolation of the Indian peninsula.
k) Static nature of the Hindu society.
l) Foreign invasions.
m) Rural social structure.

Factors which facilitated the Growth of Caste System in India

Among the factors that have facilitated the continued existence and growth of the caste system,
the following are the most important:
(1.) The geographic isolation of the Indian Peninsula for a long time made the people to foster old
customs, mores, traditions and superstitious beliefs which in turn encouraged the caste system to
grow.
(2.) The influence of religion is one of the main factors that caused the continuation of the case
system. The Hindu Caste system is looked upon as a divine ordained institution. Beliefs in
reincarnation and the doctrine of Karma also further strengthened the caste system.
(3.) The existence of many races in the country led to the formulation of many strict laws concerning
discrimination since each race endeavoured to maintain its purity.
(4.) The real social structure has its own impact on the caste. The unchanging static rural social
structure of India favoured the growth of caste system.
(5.) The unwillingness of rulers to enforce a uniform standard of law and custom and their readiness
to recognize the varying customs of different groups as valid, also facilitated the growth of caste
system.
(6.) Lack of education has contributed in no small measure to the growth of caste system. Illiteracy
and ignorance have made the people to become orthodox and to implicitly accept the caste rules
and restrictions.
(7.) Further, factors such as the hereditary occupations: the desire of the Brahmins to keep
themselves pure: ideas of exclusive family, ancestor worship, the sacramental meal, the
deliberate economic and administrative policies followed by the various conquerors, particularly
the British, clash of races, colour prejudices and conquest, etc., also have contributed to the
growth of caste system in India.
Changes in the Caste system

The caste system which is an integral part of the Indian system has a long standing history of its
own. To understand how the system has come to be what it is today, one has to go back through
the pages of history to trace its origin, evolution and growth. It is not easy to say precisely when,
 64

how and under what circumstances and pressures the system took its birth and developed. The
task of tracing the evolution and growth of this system in precise and unambiguous terms is
equally problematic. For the purpose of study three main stages in the evaluation of caste may
be identified. They are mentioned below:
(1.) Caste in Ancient Age [The period upto 1100 A.D which is inclusive of Vedic Age, Post-Vedic
Age and Puranic Age].
(2.) Caste in Medieval Age [The period between 1100 A.D. and 1757 A.D. which includes mainly
the age of Muslim Rule in India].
(3.) Caste in Modern Age [The period after 1757 A.D. which includes the Pre-Independent British
period and the period after Independence].
(4.) Caste in Modern Age [After 1757 A.D]
The modern period in which some major developments took place in caste system can be divided
into two stages namely: (A) Caste during British rule and (B) Caste in Independence India.
Changes in Caste System during the British Rule:

Prior to the coming of the British, caste had grown into a powerful social institution, with the
dominance of Brahmins at the top of its hierarchy. The Hindu kings also upheld this institution
with the help of their civil power. With the advent of the British as the political head of the
society, the traditional form of the caste started taking a different shape.
The British Intention was to Rule not to Initiate Reformative Chances

The British brought with them their own traditional form of government which was quite
different from that of the Indian monarchical system. But as Christians the British “….. could
not have much sympathy with the institutions of the Hindu”. As prudent foreigners they were
more interested in consolidating their power over a strange land and people rather than initiating
reformative changes in its peculiar institutions such as “caste”. They introduced a system of
education which did not demand of the learners any change of caste or religion. The policy of
comparative non-interference followed by the British made the lower castes revolt against the
Brahmin supremacy. Growth of modern industrial organization and the rapid spread of
urbanisation further altered the social situation. This situation made it inevitable for people of
different castes, classes and religions to live in close congregations in cities. With this
background the changes in the caste system during the British rule can be studied in two
stages: (A) Pre-Industrial British Period 1757-1918 A.D and (B) Pre-Independent Industrial
Period – 1918-1947 A.D.
(A) Pre-Industrial British Period [1757 to 1918 A.D.]

The East India Company of the British obtained from the Mughal rulers some commercial
privileges in the beginning of the 17th century. It tightened its political hold over the whole of
India within 7 to 8 decades. The appointment of Warren Hastings in 1774 as the first Governor
General of India marked the beginning of the British Age in India.
(1.) Declining Hold of the Caste Panchayats
 65

After consolidating their power the British introduced throughout India uniform legal, legislative
systems. The British transferred the judicial power of the caste councils to the civil and criminal
courts which affected the authority which the Panchayats had held over the members. Questions
of assault, adultery, rape and the like were taken before the British Courts for decision. In civil
matters such marriage, divorce, caste-based occupational disputes. Disputes between husband
and wife, parents and children etc., the intention of the British was to be guided by the caste
customs. But in actual practice various decisions of the High Courts virtually set aside the
authority of the caste.
(2.) Influence of Social Legislation on Caste
Some of the legislation which the British introduced shook the integrity of the caste
system. Specific mention can be made of a few of the legislations such as the following:
a. The Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 [which served to remove some of the disabilities
associated with caste including the practice of untouchability].
b. The Special Marriage Act of 1872 [which legalized inter caste and inter-religious marriages].
c. The Hindu Widows Remarriage Act of 1856 [which gave legal permission for widows to
remarry].
These and many other socio-legal measures of the British government gave a severe blow t the
integrity of the caste system. But as Prof. Ghurye has pointed out, all these measures were taken
by the British Government purely for administrative convenience and it had no desire to reduce
the rigidity of caste.
(3.) Impact of Social Reform Movements:
Some of the social reform movements launched by social reformers during the British rule also
attacked the caste system and its inequalities.
1. The Brahma Samaj founded by Raja Ram Mohan Ray in 1820 and developed by Devendranath
Tagore and Keshav Chandra Sen condemned the barriers of caste divisions, idol worship, human
and animals sacrifies. It advocated universal brotherhood of men.
2. The Prarthana Samaj launched by Justice Ranade devoted its attention to social reforms such as
inter dining, inter caste marriage, remarriage of widows etc.
3. The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswathi in 1875 repudiated the caste
restrictions, protested against prohibition of sea-voyages and insisted that even the shudras could
study the Vedas. It tried to remodel the Hindu society on the basis of the Vedic ideals. It
functioned as a militant force to product the Hindu society from the “onslaughts of Western
rationalization”. It started the “Shuddhi” (purification) movement to re-Hinduise the the
converts, the fallen, the outcastes and other externals.
4. The Ramakrishna Mission started by Swami Vivekananda, a great disciple of Sri Ramakrishna
Paramhamsa, in1897 represents the synthesis of the ancient or oriental and the modern or
western culture. Vivekananda, who had imbibed in himself Raja Ram’s rationalism and
Dayananda Saraswathi’s spirituality, was pragmatic in his approach. He condemned caste
inequalities, exploitation of lower castes and women. He stressed on education, self-reliance and
 66

freedom of women. He even predicted that the Shudras [“Shramiks” or “labourers”] would
dominate in the years to come.
5. Other reform Movements: Other social movements such as – (i) Jyotirao Phooley’s (1873)
‘Satyashodak Samaj’; (ii) Annie Besant’s ‘Theosophical society’; (iii) Maharishi Arvind
Ghosh’s ‘Divine Life Society’ – also served to loosen the hold of caste restrictions.
What is to be noted is that these reform movements “did not succeed in removing the rigidity of
the caste system in this period…” However,, they could only affect some of the structural
features of caste.
(4.) Spread of English Education and Influence of the Western Ideas:
Spread of English education exposed Indians for the first time to the Western World. The
popular Western ideas and values such as “liberty, equality and fraternity”, democracy,
rationalism, individualism, women’s liberation, secularism, humanitarianism etc. made their
inroads into India. These ideas had deeply influenced the Western educated Indians. People
who had hitherto been the targets of atrocities, deprivation, exploitation and humiliation could
now voice their protest by asserting their rights. Increasing influence of science and technology
added greater strength to the growing awareness of the masses.
(5.) Birth of the Backward Caste Movements:
Movements of a more militant nature against caste started with the founding of Satyashodhak
Samaj in 1873 by Jyotirao Phooley of Poona, a man of Mali Caste. The main purpose of this
Samaj was to assert the worth of man irrespective of caste. Through his writings and practices
he led a revolt against the tyranny of the caste system and the hegemony of the Brahmins. He
appealed to the non-Brahmin castes not to engage any Brahmin priest to conduct their marriage
ritual. He tried to reduce the enormous ritual system into a simple procedure. He perceived the
necessity of educating the lower-caste people. He could translate his vision into practice when
he opened a primary school for the so called untouchables in Poona as early as in 1851.
(B) Pre-Independent Industrial Period [1919-1947]
The caste system underwent a few more significant changes when India stepped into the 20th
century. The role of three factors in bringing about such changes is worth mentioning here.
(1.) Influence of Industrialisation: Decline of Caste-Based Occupational system.
The advent of Industrial Revolution also affected Indian socio-economic conditions. The British
brought modern machineries and introduced factory system of production. New industries,
occupations, employment opportunities, salary-based service system came to be
established. The growth of industries destroyed the old crafts and household industries and
provided for countless ways earning livelihood. Introduction of railways, telegraph and lying of
radios helped trade and commerce. People of all castes started making use of the new economic
opportunities.
Industrialisation also resulted in occupational and geographic mobility. Movement of people
from the compact ancestral village to the towns and cities started breaking down many of the
caste norms. Crowded trains and buses could bring together lakhs of people of all castes and left
 67

little room for the niceties of ceremonial purity. Taboos against some foods and accepting food
and water from persons of other castes also started weakening. Hotel system of food and hostel
system of residence served to bring together people of different castes. The ‘jajmani’ system of
economy which had made economic interdependence of different castes started declining. It
slowly gave place to the capitalist system of economy. These industrial and their concomitant
development made caste-members to come out of the hold of caste-based occupations and to
resort to the new occupational avenues based purely on personal preferences and choices.
Influence of industrialization was, no doubt, widespread. But its impact was not uniform and
absolute on all the basic features of caste. For example, its impact on the endogamous nature of
marriage and various marriage practices, rules and beliefs was almost negligible. Rapid
industrialization never led to the automatic dissolution of the caste system and its progressive
replacement by a class system as it was believed by some Western scholars. The economic
aspects of caste underwent swift changes whereas its socio-cultural aspects never got changed
with equal speed.
(2.) Impact of Urbanisation
In order to reap the benefits of new educational and occupational opportunities people started
moving towards towns and cities in large number. The necessities of city life relaxed the
commensally taboos imposed by caste and lessened the dominance of Brahmins. As Srinivas has
pointed out, the non-Brahmins refused to show the same respect to the Brahmins which they
used to show earlier. The growth of city life with its migratory population brought about
changes in the rigidity of the case system. Kingsely Davis also “held that the anonymity,
congestion, mobility, secularism and changeability of the city made the operation of caste
virtually impossible”.
(3.) Influence of Freedom Movement and the Role of Gandhi.
Indian freedom struggle also altered the character of caste to some extent. The freedom struggle
organized by the Indian National Congress brought together people of different castes, classes,
religious and regions under one banner. The Congress led by Gandhiji launched a campaign
against untouchability and roused the conscience of the people against its practice. Participation
of the lower castes in the freedom struggle boosted their image.
At the far end of the British rule, though the traditional influence of caste started declining, its
organizational strength was increasing. As Ghurye observed, “All about the end of the British
rule in India, Caste-Society presented the spectacle of self-centred groups more or less in conflict
with one another”.
Caste in Independent India (After 1947)
The political independent of the country, besides the process of industrialization, urbanization,
secularization etc. brought in a series of changes in the caste system. These changes can be
classified into two categories: (A) Changes in the traditional features of caste; (B) Changes in
the role for functioning of the caste.
A. Changes in the traditional features of Caste System
 68

Caste has assumed a different form in the modern times. Some of the traditional features
[described earlier] have been radically altered. Here is a brief survey of the changes that have
taken place in caste system after Independence.
(1.) The religious basis of the caste has been attacked. Caste is no more believed to be divinely
ordained. It is being given more a social and secular meaning than a religious interpretation.
(2.) Restrictions on food habits have been relaxed. Distinction between ‘pakka’ food and ‘kachcha’
food has almost vanished. Food habits have become more a matter of personal choice than a
caste rule. Still commensally taboos are not completely ignored especially in the rural
areas. Inter-dining has not become the order of the day.
(3.) Caste is not very much associated with hereditary occupations. Caste no longer determines the
occupational career of an individual. Occupations are becoming more and more “caste-
free”. Even Brahmins are found driving taxis, dealing with foot-wears and running non-
vegetarian hotels and bars and so on.
(4.) Endogamy, which is often called the very essence of the caste system, still prevails. Inter caste
marriages though legally permitted, have not become the order of the day. As K.M. Kapadia
says, “there is an indifference to the inter-caste marriages if not tacit acceptance by the society”.
(5.) The special civil and religious privileges which the Brahmins enjoyed are no more being enjoyed
by them. The Constitution of India has removed all such privileges and made all castes equal.
Most of the legal, political, educational, economic and other disabilities from which the lowest
caste people had suffered, have been removed by the constitutional provisions. They are given
special protection also. Adult franchise and “reservation” have given them a strong weapon to
protect their interests.
(6.) Caste continues to be a segmental division of Hindu society. Caste with its hierarchical system
continues to ascribe statuses to the individuals. But the twin processes of Sanskritisation and
Westernisation have made possible mobility both within and outside the framework of caste.
(7.) Caste panchayats, which used to control the behaviour of caste-members, have either become
very weak or disappeared. Though they are often found here and there in the village areas, they
are almost non-existent in the urban areas.
(8.) Restrictions imposed by the caste on social inter course are very much relaxed. Distinction
between ‘touchable’ and ‘untouchable’ is not much felt especially in the community of literate
people. However, instances of untouchability are heard in the rural areas.
(9.) Other Important Changes
a. Though the dominances of caste is still found in villages it no longer depends upon its ritual
status.
b. Casteism which is associated with caste, instead of disappearing in the wake of modernism that
become still stronger.
c. The ‘jajmani’ system which used to govern the inter-caste relation especially in the villages has
become very weak. In many places it has vanished. In place of inter-caste dependence, inter-
caste strife’s are found.
 69

d. Caste has lost much of its hold over the social usages and customs practiced by its members.
e. Caste today does not dictate individual’s life nor does it restrict newly valued individual
freedom. Hence it no longer acts as a barrier to the progress of an individual.
Changes in the Role of Caste
The caste system in its attempts to adjust itself to the changed conditions of life has assumed new
roles. Besides industrialization and urbanization, other factors such as Westernisation,
Sanskritisation, reorganization of Indian states, spread of education, socio-religious reforms,
spatial and occupational mobility and growth of market economy have greatly affected the caste
system. Changes in the role of caste must also be understood in the light of the influence of
these factors.
(1.) Increase in the organisational power of Caste.
Education makes people liberal, broad-minded, rationale and democratic. Educated people are
believed to be less conservative and superstitious. Hence it was expected that with the growth of
literacy in India, caste-mindedness and casteism would come down. On the country, caste-
consciousness of the members has been increasing. Every caste wants to safeguard its
interests. For fulfilling these purposes, castes are getting themselves organized on the model of
labour unions.
Today every caste wants to organize itself. Such caste organizations are on the increase. Mainly
to cater to the educational, medical and religious needs of their members, these organizations are
running hostels and hospitals, schools and colleges, reading-rooms and libraries, dharmashalas
and temples and so on. These caste-based organizations are also trying to project the leadership
of some of their members to serve as their spokesmen.
(2.) Political Role of Caste.
Caste and politics have come to affect each other now. Caste has become an inseparable aspect
of our politics. In fact, it is tightening its hold on politics. Elections are fought more often on
the basis of caste. Selections of candidates, voting analysis, selection of legislative party leaders,
distribution of ministerial portfolios etc. are very much based on caste. Even the
communist parties which project the ideal of a casteless and classless society are also not an
exception to this. Politics of each state, as M.N. Srinivas says, is virtually the politics of
confrontation of its “dominant castes”. Thus, unless one knows the political confrontation
between the dominant castes such as Ligayats and Vokkaligas in Karnataka and Reddys and
Kammas in Andhra Pradesh, one cannot understand the policies of these two states. M.N.
Srinivas also makes a distinction between caste at the ritual level and caste at the political
level. Caste at the ritual level is smaller unit than the caste at the political level.
(3.) Protection for Scheduled Castes and other backward classes.
The constitution of India has made enough provisions to protect the interests of Scheduled
Castes and Tribes. They are offered more political, educational and service opportunities
through the reservation policy. Seats are reserved for them from Mandal panchayat to
Parliament and in all government departments. Though the reservation policy is against the
declared goal of establishment of a casteless society, all political parties have supported it
 70

mostly, for political purposes. According to M.N. Srinivas, “The provision of constitutional
safeguard to …. Scheduled Castes and Tribes has given a new lease of life to caste”. These
provisions have made some of them develop vested interests to reap permanently the benefits of
reservation. They are also tempting many other Castes to bring pressure on the government to
declare them as belonging to the category of Scheduled castes.
(4.) Sanskritisation and Westernisation
As M.N. Srinivas has pointed out, two important trends are witnessed in caste – the process of
Sanskritisation and that of Westernisation. The former refers to a process in which the lower
castes tend to intimate the values, practices and other life-styles of some dominant upper
castes. The latter denotes a process in which the upper-caste people tend to mould their life-
styles on the model Westerners.
(5.) Backward Class Movements.
The non-Brahmin castes today are getting themselves more and more organized to challenge the
supremacy of the Brahmins and to assert their rights. The establishment of ‘Satyashodhak
Samaj’ by Jyotirao Phooley in Poona in 1873 marked the beginning of such a non-Brahmin
movement. This movement against the Brahmin supremacy by the lower castes came to be
known as Backward Classes Movement. In the beginning, the main aim of this movement was
to limit the Brahmin monopoly in the two fields such as education and appointment to
government posts.
The Backward Classes Movement has become a vital political force today. Its influence has
changed the political scenario of the country. This movement has made the Brahmins politically
weak and insignificant especially in Kerala and Tamilnadu. This movement has also brought
pressure on different political parties to create special opportunities for the lowest caste people
enabling them to come up to the level of other higher castes. Due to this pressure, Backward
Classes Commissions were established at Central and State levels which recommended
“reservation” for backward caste/classes.
(6.) Competitive Role of Castes
Mutual interdependence of castes which existed for centuries and was reinforced by the
institutional system of “jajmani”, is not found today. As M.N. Srinivas points out, the “vertical
solidarity” of castes has been replaced by “horizontal solidarity”. “Live and let live” policy,
which was, once associated with the caste makes no sense today. On the country, each caste
looks at the other with suspicision, contempt and jealousy and finds in it a challenger, a
competitor. Excessive caste-mindedness and caste-patriotism have added to this
competition. The economic base of a caste and its hold over the political power virtually
determine the intensity of this competitiveness. This competitive spirit further strengthens caste-
mindedness.
(7.) New attempts to strengthen Caste-loyalty, Caste-identity, Caste-patriotism and Caste-
mindedness
 71

Today caste organizations are increasing and are making every attempt to obtain the loyalty of
their members and to strengthen their caste-identity and solidarity. Some such attempts can be
cited here.
 Though Caste Panchayats are dwindling, caste organizations are on the increase. Some of these
organizations have their own written constitutions and managing committees through which they
try to preserve some of the caste rules and practices.
 Caste organizations run their own papers, bulletins, periodicals, monthlies etc., through which
they regularly feed information to the members regarding the activities of caste organization and
achievements of caste-members.
 Attempts are also made to increase caste integration through the establishment of caste based
trusts and trust-units. These trusts arrange annual gatherings, get-togethers, annual dinners,
occasional festival celebrations, they provide shelter to the needy members of the caste. They
offer scholarships to the poor students of the caste. Some of them run schools, colleges, hostels,
maternity-homes for caste members and so on.
 The occupational castes are making determined efforts to improve the economic conditions of
caste members by establishing cooperative credit and industrial societies.
 Caste organizations collect regular subscription from the members, arrange annual conferences,
discuss matters and issues affecting caste interests and caste solidarity and organize agitation and
protest meetings against the governmental policies if they were to damage caste interests. In
states like Bihar, some upper and lower castes have formed their own ‘senas’
Causes for the Changes in Caste System

The caste system has undergone vast changes in modern times. Factors that contributed to the
changes in the caste system are briefly examined here.
(1.) Uniform Legal System. The uniform legal system introduced by the British made the Indians
feel that “all men are equal before the law”. A number of legislations which the British
introduced also struck at the root of the caste system. Independent India followed the same legal
system. The Constitution of India has not only assured equality to all but also declare the
practice of untouchability unlawful. Articles 16, 164, 225, 330, 332, 334, 335, 338 and the 5th
and 6th Schedules of the Constitution provide for some special privileges to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes to enable them to come up to the level of other upper castes.
(2.) Impact of Modern Education. The British introduced the modern secular education in a uniform
way throughout India. In independent India educational facilities are extended to all the caste
people. The lowest caste people are also entitled to avail themselves of these facilities. Modern
education has given a blow to the intellectual monopoly of a few upper castes. It has created
awareness among people and weakened the hold of caste over the members. It does not,
however, mean that the modern educated people are completely free from the hold of the caste.
(3.) Industrialisation, Urbanisation and Westernisation. Due to the process of industrialization
number of non-agricultural job opportunities was created. This new economic opportunity
weakened the hold of the upper castes people who owned vast lands. People of different castes,
classes and religious started working together in factories, offices, workshops etc. This was
 72

unthinkable two centuries ago. Growth of cities has drawn people of all castes together and
made them to stay together ignoring many of their caste restrictions. The upper caste people
started looking to the west for modifying their life-style on the model of the West. Thus they
became more and more westernized without bothering much about caste inhibitions.
(4.) Influence of Modern Transport and communication system. Modern means of transport such as
train, bus, ship, aeroplane, trucks etc. have been of great help for the movement of men and
materials. Caste rules relating to the practice of purity and pollution and untouchability could no
longer be observed. Modern means of communication, such as, newspapers, post, telegraph,
telephone, radio, television etc., have helped people to come out of the narrow world of caste.
(5.) Freedom Struggle and the Establishment of Democracy: The freedom struggle waged against
the British brought all the caste people together to fight for a common cause. Establishment of
democratic type of government soon after Independence gave yet another blow to the caste by
extending equal socio-economic opportunities to all without any discrimination.
(6.) Rise of Non-Brahmin Movement. A movement against the Brahmin supremacy was launched
by Jyothirao Pooley in 1873. This movement became popular in course of time particularly in
the South. It created awareness among the lower castes and instilled in them the feeling of “self-
respect”. This movement which became a great political force, brought pressure upon the
government to establish Backward Classes Commissions at Central and State levels. The
recommendations made by these commissions and their implementation provided vast scope for
the lower castes to achieve progress.
Other Important Causes
(1.) Social Legislations: A series of social legislations introduced by the British as well as by the
Indian governments [such as the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1872, The Hindu Marriage
Act of 1955, The Untouchability Offences Act of 1956 etc.] directly and indirectly altered the
nature of the caste system.
(2.) Social Reform Movements. Various social reform movements [such as Satyashodhak Samaj,
Brahma Samaj, Arya Samaj, Sri Ramakrishna Mission etc.] launched during the second half of
the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries have been able to remove the rigidity and some of
the evil practices associated with the caste system.
(3.) Impact of the West. Influence of the Western thought and particularly the ideas of rationalism,
liberalism, humanitarianism, egalitarianism etc., made the educated Indians to come out of the
clutches of the caste.
(4.) Threat of Conversion. Social disabilities imposed on the lower castes made some of them to get
themselves converted to either Christianity or Islam. Pressure tactics and temptations further
added to this conversion process. The threat of conversion compelled the upper castes to relax
many of the caste rigidities so that they could hold back the lower caste people who were getting
ready for conversion.
(5.) Improvement in the Status of Women, Evolution of New Social Classes. [Working class, middle
class and capitalist class] and radical changes in the system of division of labour especially in the
rural areas have further loosened the roots of caste system.
 73

Merits and Demerits of Caste System

The Indian caste system has its own merits and demerits. Some of its merits and demerits may
be mentioned here.
Merits
1. Caste represents a harmonious division of society based mainly on division of labour and
occupation.
2. Caste promotes the spirit of cooperation and fellow-feeling at least within its range. It helps
the poor, the needy and strengthens group sentiment.
3. Caste is a source of social stability. It has given strength to the Indian society to withstand
the “shocks of politics and the cataclysms of nature”.
4. The caste functions as the constitution of the Hindu society. It rendered most important
services in the past and continues to sustain the social order and its solidarity.
5. The caste preserves the racial purity by prohibiting inter-marriages and by imposing
endogamy on as members.
6. It defines the economic pursuits and provides professional career to each individuals. It
provides for cultural diffusion within the group. The ‘caste culture’ is passed on from one
generation to the next, very systematically. As Hutton says, the caste canalizes an individual’s
choice in marriage, “acts as his trade union, his friendly ore benefit society, his state club and his
orphanage it takes care for him of health, insurance and if need be provides for funeral”.
Demerits of Caste
1. The caste system has unwarrantedly divided the Hindu society into mutually hostile and
conflicting groups and sub groups. It has given scope to the inhuman practice of
untouchability. It has cut across the social solidarity.
2. As Gandhiji has said, untouchability is “the hate fullest expression of the caste”.
3. It has hindered the growth of a strong national unity. The spirit of ‘caste-patriotism’
endangers the growth of national consciousness.
4. The excessive caste loyalty has brought political disunity. It has wrecked the successful
working of the multi-party system.
5. It has prevented the proper growth of democracy. Strictly speaking, democracy and caste
cannot go together. The caste engenders inequality while democracy assures equality.
6. It has retarded progress. The caste is more conservative, reactionary and orthodox. It is for
the status quo.
7. It has hindered mobility; it has made our society more static than dynamic.
8. It has lowered the status of women. In a caste-ridden society women have only a subordinate
role to play.
9. It has given scope for religious conversions. The lower caste people are getting converted into
Islam and Christianity due to the tyranny of the upper castes.
 74

Some Aspects of Social Mobility:

Though the Indian society which is based on the caste system is often regarded as a “closed
society”, it is not altogether changeless. Within the framework of the caste itself some kind of
mobility is observed. Lower castes have often tried to claim higher status by imitating the life-
styles of upper-castes particularly of Brahmins and Kshatriyas. M/N. Srinivas used the term
‘Sanskritisation’ to denote such a type of process. The upper castes including Brahmins, on the
contrary, have started orienting their life-styles on the model of the Westerners. The term
“Westernisation’ introduced by M.N. Srinivas describes this process. Today not only the upper
class and middle class people including upper caste and intermediary caste people are trying to
orient their behaviour, attitudes, beliefs and life-styles towards those of developed societies; but
also the entire mass of people are involved in this process. Daniel Lerner calls this process
‘modernisation’. It denotes a process of social change whereby “less developed societies acquire
the characteristics common to more developed societies”.

Here is an attempt to understand the socio-cultural changes that have been taking place in India
in terms of these processes namely: Sanskritisation, Westernisation and Modernisation. These
three processes reflect an attempt to the part of the Indian masses to achieve some amount of
mobility both within and outside the framework of the caste system.
Sanskritisation: The term “Sanskritisation” was introduced into Indian Sociology by Prof. M.N.
Srinivas. The term refers to a process whereby people of lower castes collectively try to adopt
upper caste practices and beliefs, as a preliminary step to acquire higher status. Thus it indicates
a process of cultural mobility that is taking place in the traditional social system of India.

M.N. Srinivas in his study of the Coorg in Karnataka, found that lower castes, in order to raise
their position in the caste hierarchy, adopted some customs and practices of the Brahmins, and
gave up some of their own which were considered to be “impure” by the higher castes. For
example, they gave up meat-eating, drinking liquor and animals sacrifice to their deities, They
imitated Brahmins in matters of dress, food and rituals. By doing this, within a generation or so
they could claim higher positions in the hierarchy of castes. In the beginning, M.N. Srinivas
used the term “Brahminisation” to denote this process. Later on, he replaced it by
“Sanskritisation”.
Definition of Sanskritisation

M.N. Srinivas, in fact, has been broadening his definition of the term ‘Sanskritisation’ from time
to time. Initially, he described it as – “the process of mobility of lower castes by adopting
vegetarianism and teetotalism to move in the caste hierarchy in a generation or two” –
(1962). Later on, he redefined it as “a process by which a low caste or a tribe o other group
changes in customs, rituals, ideology and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently,
twice-born caste”. The second definition is much broader for it includes ideologies also.
Sanskritisation and Brahminisation

Sanskritisation is a much broader concept than Brahminisation. M.N. Srinivas preferred it to
Brahminisation for some reasons:
 75

(1.) Sanskritisation is a broader term and it can subsume in itself the narrower process of
Brahminisation. For instance, today, though by and large, Brahmins are vegetarians and
teetotalers, some of them such Kashmins, Bengalis and saraswath Brahmins eat non-vegetarian
food. Had the term ‘Brahminisation’ been used, it would have become necessary to specify
which particular Brahmin group was meant.
(2.) Further, the reference groups of Sanskritisation are not always Brahmin. The process of
imitation need not necessarily take place on the model of Brahmins. Srinivas himself has given
the example of the low castes of Mysore who adopted the way of life of Lingayats, who are not
Brahmins but who claim equality with Brahmins. Similarly, the smiths of Mysore call
themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and wear sacred threads and have sanskritised some of the
rituals.

The lower castes imitated not only Brahmins but also Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Jats, Shudras, etc. in
different parts of the country. Hence the term Brahminisation does not completely explain this
process. M.N. Srinivas himself acknowledged this fact and wrote: “I now realize that, I
emphasized unduly the Brahminical model of Saskritisation and ignored the other models
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra …..”
An Analysis of the Process of Sanskritisation
An Analysis of the process of ‘Sanskritisation’ would reveal to us the following facts:
(1.) ‘Sanskritisation’ denotes the process in which the lower castes try to imitate the life-styles of
upper castes in their attempt to raise their social status. The process seems to be associated with
the role of local “dominant caste”. Though for some time, the lower castes imitated Brahmins
they soon shifted it towards the local dominant caste which in most cases a non-Brahmin
dominant caste.
(2.) Sanskritisation denotes the process of upward mobility. In this process, a caste is trying to
increase its position in the caste hierarchy not at once, but over a period of time. It would take,
sometimes, a period of one or two generations.
(3.) Mobility that is involved in the process of Sanskritisation results only in “positional changes”
for particular castes or sections of castes and need not necessarily lead to a “structural
change”. It means, while individual castes move up or down, the structure as such remains the
same.
(4.) Sanskritisation is not a new phenomenon as such, M.N. Srinivas writes: “Sanskritisation has
been a major process of cultural change in Indian history, and it has occurred in every part of the
Indian sub-continent. It may have been more active at some periods than at others, and some
parts of India are more sanskritised than others; but there is no doubt that the process has been
universal”.
(5.) The castes which enjoyed higher economic and political power but rated relatively low in ritual
ranking went after Sanskritisation for they felt that their claim to a higher position was not fully
effective. The three main aspects of power in the caste system are the ritual, the economic and
the political ones. The possession of power in any one sphere usually leads to the acquisition of
power in the other two. But Srinivas opines that inconsistencies do occur.
 76

(6.) “Economic betterment is not a necessary pre-condition to Sanskritisation, nor must economic
development necessarily lead to Sanskritisation. However, sometimes a group (caste, tribe) may
start by acquiring, political power and this may lead to economic development and
Sanskritisation. Economic betterment, the acquisition of political power, education, leadership
and a desire to move up in the hierarchy, are all the relevant factors in Sanskritisation, and each
case of Sanskritisation may how all or some of these factors mixed up in different measures”.
(7.) Sanskritisation is not necessarily confined to the castes within the Hindu community, it is found
in tribal communities also. Example. The Bhils of Western India, the Gonds and Oraons of
Middle India, and the Pahadiyas of Himalayan region have come under the influence of
Sanskritisation. These tribal communities are now claiming themselves to be Hindus for their
communities represent some caste groups within the fold of Hinduism. (It should be noted that
in the traditional system, a group could be called ‘Hindu’ only if it was regarded as a caste
group).
(8.) The process of Sanskritisation serves as a “reference group”. It is through this process, a caste
group tries to orient its beliefs, practices, values, attitudes and “life-styles” in terms of another
superior or dominant group, so that it can also get some recognition. Since this term was made
applicable by M.N. Srinivas even to Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra models (in addition to
Brhamana model), it has greater relevance to function as a “reference group”.
(9.) Sanskritisation does not take place in the same manner in all the places. Studies have reveled
that in most of the cases the lower castes tend to imitate the upper castes particularly the
Kshatriya and Brahmin castes. There are instances of upper castes imitating some of the
practices of lower castes, and sometimes of even tribal groups. For example, a Brahmin may
make a blood-sacrifice to one of the local deities through the medium of a non-Brahmin
friend. The Muslim cultural ways have imposed some limitations in the imitation process of
some upper and lower castes. This is very much in evidence in Punjab. Thus, it can be
generalized that Sanskritisation is not a one-way process; it is a two-way process. Not always
one caste “takes” from the higher caste, sometimes it also ‘gives’ in return.
(10.) The British rule in India provided a favourable atmosphere for Sanskritisation to take
place. Political independence has weakened the trend towards this change. Now the emphasis is
on vertical social mobility and not on the horizontal mobility. In this process of mobility the
basic unit remains the group only and not the individual or family.
(11.) The process of Sanskritisation does not automatically result in the achievement of a
higher status for the group. People will have to wait for a period of a generation or two before
their claim can be accepted. Further, it may so happen that a claim which may not succeed in a
particular area or period of time, may succeed in another.
(12.) Significant developments in the realm of material culture have accelerated the process of
Sanskritisation. Industrialsation, occupational mobility, mass media of communication, spread of
literacy, advent of Western technology, improvement in the transportation system, etc., have
speeded up the process of Sanskritisation. Introduction of parliamentary system of democracy
and universal suffrage have also contributed to the increased Sanskritisation.
 77

(13.) As M.N. Srinivas has pointed out, Sanskritisation serves to reduce or remove the gap
between the ritual and secular ranking. It is, indeed, one of its main functions. For example, if a
caste, or its segment gains secular, that is, political power, it immediately starts imitating the so
called “status-symbols” of the customs, rituals, ideals, beliefs, values, life-styles, etc. of the
upper caste communities. The lower caste group which successfully gets into the seat of secular
power also tries to avail of the services of Brahmins especially at the time of observing some
rituals, worshipping and offering things to the God in the Centres of pilgrimage, celebrating
important Hindu festivals, fixing “muhurtam” (auspicious time for doing good works or starting
ventures) for some important occasions and programmes, and so on.
(14.) Sanskritisation has often been construed as a kind of protest against the traditional caste
system. Sanskritisation is a type of protest against the caste system in which the status in
ascribed or predetermined. Lower castes which are disillusioned with their predetermined
statuses and impressed by the higher statuses accorded to the upper castes, naturally desire to go
up in the status hierarchy. This desire is virtually against the traditional hierarchical principle of
the caste system. Making an attempt through Sanskritisation to move up in the status hierarchical
principle of caste, amounts to a protest against the caste system itself.
(15.) Sanskritisation, as M.N. Srinivas himself has said, does not denote a basic change in the
structure of the Hindu society. It should not be construed that trough this process any kind of
social change can be brought about in the caste-ridden society. Since caste is a ‘closed’ society in
which the membership is based on the unchangeable factor of birth, no one can become a
member of the “reference group” as such (Reference group in this context may be an upper caste
Brahmin or non-Brahmin caste group which is locally dominant and influential). However, an
individual or a group may improve his or its social position within the range of one’s own Varna
group. Srinivas further observes that the process of Sanskritisation can only support the existing
system but can never remove it. Hence the changes that are effected through Sanskritisation
though cannot be neglected, have only limited significance.
Sanskritisation: Some Comments.

Though the concept ‘Sanskritisation’ introduced by Prof/ M.N. Srinivas has been regarded as a
significant contribution to the sociological literature, it is not free from criticisms. Number of
comments have been made about the term by the scholars. Some of them may be cited here.
(1.) According to J.F. Stall, “Sanskritisation as used by Srinivas and other anthropologists is a
complex concept or a class of concepts. The term itself seems to be misleading, since its
relationship to the term Sanskrit is extremely complicated” – (quoted by Yogendra Singh in his
“Modernization of Indian Tradition”.
(2.) Yogendra Singh comments: Though “Sanskritisation and Sanskritisation, in logical sense, are
“Truth asserting” concepts… They “fail to lead to a consistent theory of cultural change. Such
consistency is far from realization….”. The concepts “contain no hypotheses”, and in Zetterbergs
words, “Cannot be true or false. They can be clumsy or elegant, appropriate or inappropriate,
effective or worthless but never true or false”.
(3.) Yogendra Singh also opines that “Sanskritisation fails to account for many aspects of cultural
change in past and contemporary India as it neglects the non-Sankritic traditions”. Mckim
 78

Marriot has observed that truism of Yogendra Singh’s comments in one of his studies in a
village. M. Marrior observes , we cannot establish that the process of Sanskritisation always
takes place by replacing or removing the non-Sankritic rituals. “Sankritic rites often added on to
non-Sanskritic rites without replacing them” Mckim Marriot.
(4.) It is also commented that much against the assumption of M.N. Srinivas, the “Sanskritic
influence has not been universal to all parts of country. In most of northern India, especially in
Punjab, it was the Islamic tradition which provided a basis for cultural imitation”. In Punjab,
writes Chanana, “Culturally Sankritic influence has been but one of the trends, and at times, it
could not have been the main trend. For a few centuries, unit the third quarter of the 19th century
Persian influence had been the dominating one in this area”.
(5.) “As suggested by Harold A. Gould, often the motive force behind Sanskritisation is not of
cultural imitation per se but an expression of challenge and revolt against the socio-economic
deprivations”. Yogendra Singh writes: “Sanskritisation is thus a cultural camouflage for latent
interclass and intercaste competition for economic and social power, typical of a tradition bound
society where rationally the privileged upper castes hold monopoly to power and social
status. When the impact of the external forces like political democratization, land reforms and
other social reforms break, this monopoly of the upper castes, the cultural camouflage of
Sanskritisation is thrown away, in favour of an open conflict with the privileged classes based on
nativistic solidarity”.
(6.) Dr. D.N. Majumdar comments that it is wrong to assume the process of Sanskritisation as
universal process to be observed throughout India. In his study of Mohan village in Uttar
Pradesh he observed a strong exception to this assumption. In this village, as he observed, the
lower caste people do not have any urge or inclination to imitate the ‘life-style’ of Brahmins or
any other dominant higher caste of that region. If a cobbler wears tilak dhoti and the sacred
thread and follows some of the customs of higher castes, nobody recognizes him as an upper
caste man “if Sanskritisation is really a universal process, where exactly it stops and why?…. “
Dr. Majumdar questions.
(7.) M.N. Srinivas has been changing the definition of the term “Sanskritisation” from time to time
and this adds to the problem of understanding its meaning and range of operations in clear
terms. First, Dr. Srinivas used the term to mean Brahminisation. Later on, he extended its
meaning. He used it to mean a process in which a lower caste, a tribal group or any other group
attempts to imitate the “life-styles” of a locally dominant upper caste, mostly a twice-born’
caste. As per his recent interpretation, the process includes the imitation of ideas, values and
ideologies. Here also it becomes difficult to ascertain the real meaning of the term “ideology”.
(8.) When we try to interpret certain changes that have taken place in the field of social mobility in
the light of Sanksritisation, we face certain paradoxes. According to Dr. Srinivas, political and
economic forces are normally favourable for Sankritisation. But the ‘policy of reservation’ a
politico constitutional attempt to elevate the status of lower caste, and class people, presents here
a different picture. Theoretically, the policy of reservation must be supportive of
Sankritisation. But paradoxically it goes against it. Those who avail of the ‘reservation’ benefits
have developed a vested interest in calling themselves ‘dalits’ or Scheduled Caste people. They
 79

want to be called ‘dalits’ or people of Scheduled caste category so that they can permanently
avail of the benefits of reservation.

Finally, it can be said that the twin concepts of Sankritisation and Westernisation introduced by
M.N. Srinivas in explaining the cultural changes that are taking place in India, do have their own
importance. But the basic question in this: Do these twin concepts explain cultural change with
all its ramifications? Are they inclusive and universal enough to provide a satisfactory
explanation to all the major cultural changes that have taken place throughout the
country? According to Yogendra Singh, the concept of “Modernisation” can only provide a
satisfactory answer to these questions.

Social Class

‘Social Class’ is a principal type of social stratification found especially in the modern civilized
countries. If the caste system is found to be unique to India, the class system is universal in
nature. Sometimes, the word ‘class’ is used to represent groups of professors, artists, engineers,
doctors, students, etc. The word ‘class’ is also used to refer the quality of the things whether
good, better, best and so on. Bu the concept of ‘social class’ is more used in sociology
representing a kind of social stratification than anything else.
Definitions of Social Class

Status is the basic criterion of class. According to Ogburn and Nimkoff, “a social class is one or
two or more broad groups of individuals who are ranked by the members of the community in
socially superior and inferior positions”.

Max Weber held the view that “classes are aggregates of individuals who have the same
opportunities of acquiring goods, the same exhibited standard of living”.

Each particular social class has its own particular social behaviour, its standards and occupations.
It is a culturally defined group that is accorded a particular position or status within population as
a whole. According to Ginsberg, “a class is a group of individuals who through a common
descent, similarity of occupation, wealth and education have come to have a similar mode of life,
a similar stock of ideas, feelings attitudes and forms of behaviour”.

P. Gisbert: A social class is “a category or group of persons having a definite status in society
which permanently determines their relation to other groups”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff: ‘A social class is the aggregate of persons having essentially the same
social status in a given society’.

MacIver and Page: “A social class is any portion of the community marked off from the rest by
social status”.

Lapire: “A social class is culturally defined group that is accorded a particular position of status
within the population as a whole’.
 80

Thus, it is clear that social class is a segment of society with all the members of all ages and both
the sexes who share the same general status. As Maclver says, “whenever social intercourse is
limited by the consideration of social status by distinctions between higher and lower, there
exists a social class”.

The relative position of class in the society arises from the degree of prestige attached to the
status. Wherever the consideration of status, lower or higher limits social intercourse, there
social class exists. Status is the basic criterion of social class or in other words, class is a status
group. MacIver and Page write “the understanding of social class as a distinct status group
provides us with a precise concept and are generally applicable to any system of social
stratification, wherever found, it is the sense of status, sustained by economic, political or
ecclesiastical power and by distinctive modes of life and cultural expressions corresponding to
them, that draws class apart from class, gives cohesion to each class and stratifies the whole
society”.

Thus in a class, there is, firstly, a feeling of equality in relation to members of one’s own class, a
consciousness that one’s mode of behaviour will harmonize with the behaviour of similar
standards of life. Individual belonging to the same social class are expected to maintain similar
standards of life and to choose their occupations within a limited range. There is a realisation of
similarity of attitude and behaviour with the members of one class. Secondly, there is a feeling of
inferiority in relation to those who stand above in the social scale. Thirdly, there is a feeling of
superiority to those below in the social hierarchy.

Thus the fundamental attribute of a social class is its social position of relative inferiority or
superiority to other social classes. The members of each social class constitute something of an
in-group. They recognise one another as social equals and distinguish in a variety of ways
between themselves and the members of other classes. They usually associate with the members
of their own class and live together and apart from the other classes. They have their own
distinctive ways of life. In a sense, each social class is a society within a society, but it is not a
complete and independent society.

Social class is distinguished from other classes by certain customary mode of behaviours which
are taken to be characteristic of that class and may be concerned with such things as mode of
dress, type of conveyance, the way of recreation and expenditure. The society sometime resents
the breach of these modes by that class which is expected to observe them. Sometimes the
members of lower social class resent any interference in their modes of behaviour by the upper
class.
Nature and Characteristics of Social Class
(1.) Class – A Status Group. A social class is essentially a status group. Class is related to
status. Different statuses arise in a society as people do different things; engage in different
activities and purse different vocations. The consideration of the class as a status group makes it
possible to apply it to any society, which has many strata. The idea of social status separates the
individuals not only physically sometimes even mentally.
(2.) Achieved Status and Not Ascribed Status. Status in the case of class system is achieved and not
ascribed. Birth is not the criterion of status. Achievements of an individual mostly decide his
 81

status. Class system provides scope for changing or improving one’s status. Factors like
income, occupation, wealth, education, ‘life-styles’, etc. decide the status of an individual.
(3.) The Class System is Universal. Class is almost a universal phenomenon. The class system
appears in all the modern complex societies of the world. It is a phenomenon that is absent only
in the smallest, the simplest, and the most primitive of societies. All other societies of any size
have a class structure.
(4.) Mode of Feeling. In a class system we may observe three modes of feelings. (i) There is a
feeling of equality in relation to the members of one’s own class (ii) There is a feeling of
inferiority in relation to those who occupy the higher status in the socio-economic hierarchy (iii)
There is a feeling of superiority in relation to those who occupy the lower status in the
hierarchy. This kind of feeling develops into class-consciousness and finally results in class
solidarity.
(5.) Element of Prestige. Each social class has its own status in society. Status is associated with
prestige. The relative position of the class in the social set up arises from the degree of prestige
attached to the status. Thus, the status and the prestige enjoyed by the ruling classes or rich
classes in every society is superior to that of the class of commoners or the poor people. The
prestige which a class enjoys depends upon our evaluations. In many societies knowledge,
purity of race or descent, religious, wealth, heroism, bravery and similar other qualities confer a
high degree of prestige on the persons possessing them. These qualities on which our
evaluations are based vary considerably in different societies, and in the course of time, within
the same society.
(6.) Element of Stability. A social class is relatively a stable group. It is not transitory nor unable
like a crowd or a mob. Though status in the case of class is subject to change, it is to some
extent stable. Status in the case of class may undergo radical changes in extraordinary
circumstances i.e., in times of wars, revolutions, economic, political and social crisis and so on.
(7.) Mode of Living. A social class is distinguished from other classes by its customary modes of
behaviour or mode of behaving. This is often referred to as the ‘life-styles’ of a particular
class. ‘Life-styles’ or the modes of living include such matters as the mode of dress, the kind of
house and neighbourhood one lives in, the means of recreation one resorts to, the cultural
products one is able to enjoy, the relationship between parents and children, the kinds of books,
magazines and TV shows to which one is exposed, one’s friends, one’s mode of conveyance and
communication, one’s way of spending money and so on. ‘Life-styles’ reflect the specialty in
preferences, tastes and values of a class.
(8.) Social Class – an Open Group. Social classes are ‘open groups’. They represent an ‘open’
social system. An open class system is one in which vertical social mobility is possible. This
means there are no restrictions, or at the most only very mild restrictions are imposed on the
upward and downward movement of individuals in the social hierarchy. However, a completely
open class system and a completely closed class system are only hypothetical.
(9.) Social class – an Economic Group. The basis of social classes is mostly economic, but they are
not mere economic groups or divisions. Subjective criteria such as class-consciousness, class
solidarity and class identification on the one hand, and the objective criteria such as wealth,
 82

property, income, education, occupation, etc., on the other, are equally important in the class
system. Classes, thus, are not merely economic groups; they are something more than these.
(10.) Classification of Social Classes. Sociologies have given three-fold classification of
classes which consists of (i) Upper Class (ii) Middle Class and (iii) Lower Class. Warner and
Lunt in their study of a New England town [their being ‘The Social Life of a Modern
Community], have divided each of the traditional classes into two sub classes. They have given
a six-fold classification consisting of (i) The Upper-Upper Class (ii)The Lower-Upper Class
(iii)The Upper-Middle Class (iv) The Lower-Middle Class, (v) The Upper-Lower Class and (vi)
The Lower-Lower Class. Karl Marx, the champion of the theory of social class and class
conflicts, has spoken of only two major social classes, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ or the rich
and the poor, or the capitalists and the workers, or the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Sorokin
has spoken of three major types of class stratification. They are economic, political and
occupational classes.
(11.) Class Consciousness. Class system is associated with class consciousness. Class
consciousness is “the sentiment that characterizes the relations of men towards the members of
their own and other classes”. Class consciousness is the means by which the integration of
persons possessing a similarity of social position and of life-chances is transformed into a
common group activity.
Development of Class:

According to Cooley there are three principal conditions favouring the growth of social classes.
(1.) Marked differences in the constituent parts of the population. (When the population is composed
of different races racial heterogeneity facilitates the growth of social classes).
(2.) Little communication and enlightenment. (The lack of inter communication among the people
also favours the growth of social classes, as social contacts are lessened the social distances
increase).
(3.) Slow rate of social change. (When society does not change and conditions remain much the same
from generation to generation, social classes develop).

In the earliest stages of civilisation, i.e., in the age of primitive barbaric tribes there are no social
classes to be found. The reason being that the savage was not in a position to establish his
superiority over his neighbours because he all the time engaged in the struggle for existence and
lived from hand to mouth. Equality of rank existed among the ancient tribes. There were no
distinctions of ranks enjoyed by particular groups. There was no difference of rich and poor
because property itself was too limited to create differences of wealth.

Rise of slavery system: But the savage tribes grew in culture and especially in military strength,
where they eaten the conquered enemies, tortured or in any case put to death. After a while with
a certain softening of attitudes, captives were not killed or eaten but spared or enslaved. This was
first reserved for women and children but afterwards extended to male captives. A class of slaves
was thus formed who were within the jurisdiction of the conquering tribes. This class was
destitute of rights. A slave was a pure chattel. He could be flogged, sold, pawned, exchanged or
put to death. Some sociologists are of the opinion that slavery system was an industrial system
 83

rather than a system of social stratification. But if we regard social stratification we can
legitimately regard slavery as a system of stratification.

Guild System: Modern classes are a development from the class structure of the Middle Ages
when feudal lords or landed gentry were at the top and the serfs at the bottom of society. There
was another class of household servants, soldiers, fighters or artisans in between these classes.
The artisans together with the small tradesmen at about the 11th century become powerful in
towns which had remained independent of the control of feudal lords and kings. The townsmen
organised themselves in guilds which formed the basis of economic structure of the Middle
Ages. Over and above the guild-men the lawyers, doctors and financiers who were mostly Jews,
constituted a higher class in the town.

Bourgeoisie System: With the industrial revolution, the class structure of medieval society
underwent a change. Now society became divided into two- the capitalists and the proletariat.

Middle Class: Besides the division of society into Capitalists and Proletariat, a new class- middle
class arose and which modified the classical capitalist proletarian dualism of the social structure.
The present day middle class is a heterogeneous group consisting not only tradesmen but also of
doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, architects and many other white collar workers whose
number is on increase. The middle class stands below the capitalists and above the proletariat
class. It is also inferior to Capitalists and superior to proletariat in social status.

The Criteria of Class Distinctions: Criteria of birth, wealth and Occupation. (Now in criteria of
polity and education are deciding social status).

Conditions of Class-Consciousness. Some kind or degree of class consciousness is almost
universal in society. Class consciousness is the sentiment that characterises the relation of men
toward the members of their own and other classes. It consists in the realisation of similarity of
attitude and behaviour with members of other classes. It is the inner aspect of class, which unites
those who feel distinct from other classes. Ginsberg has mentioned three conditions of class
consciousness. First is the ease and amount of social mobility. If movement up and down is
easy and rapid, differences in mode of life disappear, if it is possible but not easy, the
consciousness of differences is increased. The second condition of class consciousness is rivalry
and conflict. When the members of a class realize their common interests, then they may think
of defending their interests against the common enemy. The third factor is the growth of a
common tradition embodying common standards of value and common experiences. When the
people come to posses common traditions and common experiences, they may develop class
consciousness.

Class Consciousness and Class Struggle. Karl Marx, who championed the cause of workers,
laid great emphasis on ‘class consciousnesses among the working classes. According to Marx,
the rise of class consciousness among the workers leads to their class identification, class
solidarity and finally to class struggle. Hence he gave a clarion call to the workers in his
Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848 that “Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to
lose, but your chains, you have a world to win”. Class consciousness can be transformed into
same group activity with the help of some organ or instrument. Political party is such an
 84

organ. Hence, Lenin added the idea of a party in Marxism to prepare the workers for class
struggle.

Corporate Class Consciousness defined by MacIver as “a sentiment uniting whole group
sharing a similar social status. The working class exhibits the most clearly corporate class
consciousness which has developed under the spur of strong economic incentives and gained
more strength in the struggle to maintain or destroy the pre-status. Karl Marx laid great emphasis
on the need of corporate class consciousness among the working class. His aim was to develop
solidarity and organisation of the whole class of proletariat- the property-less wage earners.
Criterion of Class:

It is true that society has been divided into different classes at different times. Classification of
social classes has been made on the basis of objective criterion or subjective criterion or both.

Subjective Criteria may include the class consciousness, class solidarity and class
identification; the subjective criteria are essentially psychological. Members who have common
interests and attributes have a sense of in-group solidarity. They feel that their socio-economic
opportunities are almost equal. Warner and Lunt in their study of the American class system
have observed the importance of subjective factors in determining a class. According to them,
(i) belonging to the ‘right family’, (ii) doing the ‘right things’, (iii) knowing how to ‘act right’
(iv) associating with the ‘right people’, (v) living in the ‘right’ section of the town, (vi) one’s
feelings and beliefs concerning certain things – all have their impact on the status of individuals
according to which their class in determined. ‘Wealth’ alone is not a sufficient qualification for
being admitted to the upper class they maintained.

Objective Criteria. Objective criteria include those factors with the help of which one’s status
may be determined. They may include – (i) wealth, property or income, (ii) family or kinship,
(iii) location of residence, (iv) occupation, (v) level of education, (vi) physical marks of
difference such as skin colour, etc. Some sociologists have given more importance to the
objective factors.
It may be noted that the criteria upon which class is determined vary from time to time and place
to place. For example, in pre-Nazi Germany, the combination of old aristocratic family line and
high rank in the army put one in the top position. In Russia, during the Czarist regime, nobility
with a military career represented the top class position. In the Soviet Russia today, a high
position in the communist party is a basis to become a member of the top-class position. In the
U.S.A., today, the combination of high level business, high political status, wealth, education and
old family descent represent a man’s high status in the society.
Karl Marx on the contrary, has placed premium on the objective factors particularly the
economic ones. According to him, social classes originate only from economic struggle. He
neglected other subjective factors, his theory social class is, hence, regarded as one-sided,
misleading and deterministic.

Thorstein Veblen in his famous book “The Theory of the Leisure Class” (1899) analysed the
origin, nature and characteristics of the leisure class. He divided human culture three major
stages: the savage, the barbarian and the civilised. He further sub-divided each of these three
stages into lower and higher stages. In the lower savage societies there were no leisure class.
 85

Differentiation was mainly on the division of labour between men and women. In civilised
societies, a group of people came into existence which did not do any productive work. They
passed their time in leisure without engaging themselves in any industrial occupation and
differentiation came into exist between leisure class and working class.
Marxian Analysis of Class:

Marx defined a social class as all those people who share a common relationship to the means of
economic production. Those who own and control the means of production (slave owners,
feudal landowners or owners of property such as factories and capital) are the dominant
class. They exercise power because of their ownership of means of production. In an industrial
society the means of production include the factories, and the machinery and raw materials used
for manufacturing goods, Marx called them the class of ‘Bourgeoisie’ or capitalists or owners of
property.

All those who work for dominant class are – slaves, peasants, or industrial labourers. They
constitute the subordinate class. Marx called this class – the ‘proletariat’ or the labour class or
working class or poor class. Members of the proletariat own only their labour which they hire to
the owners of industry in return for wages.

The relationship between these two classes is not only one of dominance and subordination but
also of ‘exploitation’. The workers produce more wealth in the form of food, manufactured
products and services than is necessary to meet their basic needs. It means they produce ‘surplus
wealth’. But they do not enjoy the use of the surplus they have created. On the contrary, those
who own the means of production are able to grab this surplus wealth as ‘profit’ for their own
use. The capitalists are a non-producing class. They do not actually produce anything. Still
much of the wealth produced by the proletariats is taken away by the capitalists. According to
Marx, this kind of exploitation has been the main source of conflict between the two classes
throughout history.

Marx believed that the economic base of society influences the general character of all other
aspects of culture and social structure, such as law, religion, education and government. The
dominant class is able to control all of those institutions and to ensure that they protect its own
interests. “The laws, therefore, protect the rich, not poor. The established religion supports the
social order as it is, not as it might be. Education teaches the virtues of the existing system, not
its vices. Government upholds the status quo rather than undermines it”.

Marx was of the opinion that as a result of the exploitation of workers by the capitalists the gap
between the two goes o widening. Thus the rich become richer and the poor become
poorer. The results in an imbalance in production and distribution. Goods will be produced and
flooded in the market in abundant quantity and there will be only a handful of people to purchase
them. Majority of the people in society who mostly belong to the working class cannot purchase
the goods due to their poor purchasing capacity. Marx Calls this situation ‘the anarchic character
of production’. Hence capitalism suffers from its own internal contradictions. “The seed of
destruction of capitalism is ripening in the very womb of capitalism” – Marx said. He has
foretold that capitalism would end in failure. “The prophecy of capitalism is a prophecy of
doom” – Marx stated emphatically.
 86

Marx believed that the members of the proletariat would eventually realize that they were being
exploited and oppressed. They would then join together to overthrow the bourgeoisie either by
force or by voting their own representatives into the government. As a Champion of the cause of
the workers Marx called upon the workers to hasten the process of the destruction of the
capitalist system. Marx and Engels made a fervent appeal to the working class in their Manifesto
of the communist party of 1848 in the following way: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a
communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their Chains. They have a
world to win; working men of all countries unite”. Marx has even predicted that a historic
revolution would mark the end of capitalism and lead to a classless society, after their successful
revolution the workers would set up a communist society which means that the forces of
production would be communally owned, that is jointly owned by all members of
society. Goods produced would be equally shares and everyone would work for him and for the
benefit of society as a whole.
Criticism:
Marx’s views on class are part of his more general theory of the history of society. Some
sociologists agree that they are more appropriate to19th century Europe and have little relevance
today.
Marxian definition of class and its interpretation can be misleading in many marginal
cases. When Marx wrote, industry was owned and controlled primarily by individual
capitalists. But this is no longer the case today. Most industry is now run by large corporations,
which are owned by thousands of stockholders but controlled by salaried managers. As a result
the ownership and control of the means of production have been largely separated. Executives,
technicians, scientists and other professionals may control the means of production but they do
not own it. They are on the payroll like any other workers. Marx definition in this way does not
held very much in determining their social class.
Further, Marxian definition of social class does not answer a few of the questions such as –
“What is the social class of a dropout, who does not own or control the means of production but
does not work either? What is the social class of an impoverished member of the European
aristocracy, who enjoys high social prestige because of ancestry rather than any relationship to
the means of production? What is the class of a wealthy black surgeon who suffers racial
prejudices and discrimination almost every day of his or her life? ……. (Ian Robertson). The
Marxian explanation does not handle these ambiguous cases very satisfactorily.

Estate System

The term ‘Estates’ represents a type of stratification that existed in Europe during the Middle
Ages. Estates system has a long history. The system emerged in the ancient Roman Empire, and
existed in Europe until very recent times. The estates system consisted of three main divisions –
the clergy, the nobility and the commoners or the ordinary people. In England and France, for
example these three divisions were found. In some parts of Europe, for example, Sweden,
almost up to 1866 three were four estate divisions; Nobles, Clergy, Citizens and Peasants.

These historical estates were akin to social classes in at least two respects. (i) Each estate was to
some extent characterized by a distinctive style of life. (ii) The three estates could be thought of
 87

as representing a hierarchy. In this hierarchy the clergy were at the top and the commoners at
the bottom. The intermediary position was occupied by the nobles. It should be noted that the
clergy was called the First Estate only in consonance with the medieval ideal that the Church is
supreme and the state is subordinated to it. Hence, in reality there were three classes, but with
the nobility at the top.
Characteristics of Estates

T.B. Bottomore has mentioned about three important characteristics of the feudal estates of
medieval Europe. They are as follows:
1. Legal Basis of Estates. Estates were legally defined. Each estate had a ‘status’ of its own. More
precisely in a legal sense the status was associated with rights and duties, privileges and
obligations. As it has been said, “to know a person’s real position” it was first of all necessary to
know “the law by which he lived”. In comparison with the first two estates – the clergy and
nobility – the third estate consisting of the serfs or commoners suffered from many legal
disabilities. For example, the serfs had the inability to appeal to the king for justice. They had
no rights over their chattels or properties and holdings. They had the liability of paying the fines
of ‘merchet’ and ‘heriot’. (i.e., a fine paid to a lord for the marriage of a daughter, and a fine paid
to the lord on the death of a tenant). Even different penalities wer imposed on them for similar
offences.
2. Estates Representing Division of Labour. The estates represented a broad division of
labour. They had some definite functions. According to the law of the day, the nobility were to
fight and defend all, the clergy were to pray and the commoners wer to pay or provide food for
all.
3. Estates as Political Groups. The feudal estates were political groups. An assembly of estates
possessed political power. From this point of view the serfs did not constitute an estate until the
1`2th century A.D. The decline of Education feudalism after the 12th Century is associated with
the rise of a third estate. The third estate behaved for a long period within the feudal system as a
distinctive group before they overthrew it.

Thus the three estates – clergy, nobility and the commoners functioned like three political
groups. As far as participation in government was concerned, the clergy used to stand by the
nobility. In France, the political position as more rigid. This system of three estates remained
three until 1789, that is till the outbreak of the Revolution. In the French Parliament called
‘States – General’, these estates used to sit separately and not together. That differentiation
within the estates prevailed for a long time. The political movement of the French Revolution
brought about some radical changes in France.
The Caste System and the Estate System

The Caste System of India and the Estates of Medieval Europe are not one and the same. The
differences and the similarities between the two systems may be noted here:
1. A pure caste system is rooted in the religious order whereas the estates system is rooted in the
legal order. Divisions within the caste system are an interpretation of the laws of religious ritual,
the divisions of estates system are defined by the laws of man. Hence it is not necessary in the
 88

estates system to know a man’s place in a ritual order. But it is significant to know the man-
made lay by which he lives. These laws were somewhat complicated. Still their universal
characteristic was that they defined not only the right but also the duties and obligations of the
members of estates. These could be enforced either in the courts or by military strength.
2. Unlike the caste system the estates system has no “out-castes”. Because, at least in theory, all
the estates of the system enjoyed their own rights, duties and obligations. All could establish
some claim on the established social order. Here in the caste system, the outcastes suffered from
all kinds of social, political, religious, legal and other disabilities.
3. Difference between these two systems could be observed with regard to the nature of social
mobility. Both, of course, had institutionalized barriers for social mobility. The barriers in the
caste system are based on ritual impurity whereas the barriers of the estate system are
legal. Since these legal barriers are man-made they can be modified in particular
circumstances. For example, in the religious sphere, anyone belonging to any section of the
community was recruited into the church. At least in theory, anyone could attain any high place
in it. Promotion within the Church indicated some kind of social mobility. In the secular sphere,
however, the kind could provide a distinguished servant a mobile position. In both these
circumstances, changes of social position were essentially inherited.
4. The caste system, on the other hand, suffers from irreparable inequality created by divinity as it
is believed. Hence, no caste members could rise or improve upon his position in the caste
system even as an exceptional case.

Difference between Caste and Class:

Caste Class

Particular: The system with all its Universal: The Class system is universal in
peculiarities is unique to India. It is peculiar
nature. It is found in almost all the modern
To India and hence it is not universal. complex societies.
Ascribed Status: Status is ascribed to the Achieved Status: Status is achieved by the
individuals by birth. Birth is the criterion ofindividuals. There is scope for
status and not achievement. Status can neitherachievement. Hence, status can be changed or
be changed for be improved. improved.
Closed system: Caste is a closed system. It Open system: Class is an open system. It
restricts social mobility; i.e., the movement ofprovides for social mobility. Individuals can
people from one social status to that of themore from the lower class to the upper class.
other.
Divine Origin: The Caste system is believed Secular: The class system is secular. It has
to have had a divine origin. It is closely nothing to do with religion. It has been given no
associated with Hindu tradition. religious explanation.
 89

Purity and Impurity: The idea of purity andFeeling of Disparity: There is a feeling of
impurity is associated with the caste. Somedisparity on the part of the members of a
castes are called ‘pure’ while others areclass. The question of purity and impurity does
regarded as ‘impure’ castes are regarded asnot arise. Hence there is no practice of
‘untouchables’. untouchability.

Regulation of relations: The caste system Limits Relations: The Class system, on the
controls the activities and regulates theother hand, limits the range of contacts and
relations of its members to a great extent. As communications of its members. Individuals are
MacIver says, it fixes the role of a man in more free in a class. It does regulate the daily
society. It regulates even the routine activities
tasks of its members.
of the members.

1.4 Social interaction – conjunctive processes – co-operation, accommodation,

assimilation. Disjunctive processes – competition, conflict.

Man is a socio-cultural being and society is both natural and necessary for man. It is difficult for
man in isolation. They always live in various groups and associations. As members of these
groups, they act and behave in a certain manner. The behaviour of each individual is affected by
the behaviour of others. This interaction is the essence of social life. Behaviour systems grow out
of interaction. They play or talk together to realise a common end or even compete or conflict
with one another, that associative life exists. Thus interaction is the basic ingredient of social
relationships.

Society is rooted in interaction, Green defines social interaction as “the mutual influences that
individuals and groups have on one another in their attempts to solve problems and in their
striving towards goals”.

According to Dawson and Gettys “social interaction is a process whereby men interpenetrate the
minds of each other”.

Gist defines social interaction as “the reciprocal influences human beings exert on each other
through inter stimulation and response”.

According to Eldredge and Merril “social interaction is the general process whereby two or more
persons are in meaningful contact as a result of which their behaviour is modified, however
slightly”.

Thus social interaction refers to the entire range of social relationships, wherein there is
reciprocal stimulation and response between individuals. Social interaction produces some
definite influence upon social relations that exists among human beings. It establishes mental
 90

relations among persons. It is reciprocal influence mutually exerted by human beings through
their stimulation and mutual response.

According to Park and Burgess social interaction is of a dual nature, of persons with persons and
of groups with groups. The two essential conditions of social interaction are social contact and
communication. Social contact differs from physical or bodily contact. Social contact can be
established through the medium of radio, letters, telephones and other media of communications,
even between people who are separated by thousands of miles.

Of course social contact is strengthened by physical contact. According to Gillin and Gillin
“social contact is the first phase of interaction”.

Social contacts can be positive as well as negative. They are positive when they lead to
benevolence, co-operation, mutual understanding and assimilation. They are negative when if
they create hatred, jealousy and conflict.

Social contacts are established through the medium of some sense organs. An object causes
communication within that sense organ. Hence the means of communication are essential
adjuncts of social contact. Such means are language, script, gestures, symbols, radio, telephone,
post and telegraph services, newspapers, etc. human interaction is essentially communicative
interaction.

Social interaction usually takes place in the form of co-operation, accommodation,

assimilation, competition and conflict. These forms of social interaction are also designated as
social processes. These social processes described as the fundamental ways in which men
interact and establish relationships.

Mac Iver observes that “social process is the manner which the relations of the members of a
group, once brought together, acquire a certain distinctive character”. He further explains that it
also implies changes from one state of relationship to another, directed up and down, forward
and backward and hence leading towards integration or disintegration.

According to Ginsberg, “social processes mean the various modes of interaction between
individuals or groups including co-operation and conflict, social differentiation and integration,
development, arrest and decay”. Social interaction and social processes are interrelated.

Interaction refers to action done in response to another action, but when this interaction through
repetition leads to result, it is called social process. Gillin and Gillin says that “by social process
we mean those ways of interacting which we can observe when individuals and groups meet and
establish system of relationships or what happens when changes disturb already existing modes
of life”. The essential elements of social processes are sequence of events, repetition of events,
relationship between the events, continuity of events and social result.

Social processes have been classified numerously by Sociologists. According to some

Sociologists, there are only two forms of social interaction- conjunctive and disjunctive.

Conjunctive Processes – Co-operation, Accommodation, Assimilation

 91

Co-operation:

Co-operation is the most pervasive and continuous of the social processes. The word co-
operation is derived from two Latin words “Co” meaning together and “Operari” meaning to
work. It is thus a joint activity in pursuit of common goals or shared rewards. It is goal oriented
and conscious form of social interaction. It is the integrative activity and is believed to be the
opposite of competition. In reality it is conflict rather than competition is the opposite of co-
operation. It involves two elements, common end and organised effort.

Co-operation generally means working together in the pursuit of like or common interest. Green
defines co-operation as “the continuous and common endeavour of two or more persons to
perform a task or to reach a goal that is commonly cherished”.

In the words of Merril and Eldredge “co-operation is a form of social interaction wherein two or
more persons work together to gain a common end”.

Fairchild writes “co-operation is the process by which individuals or groups combine their effort,
in a more or less organised way for the attainment of common objective”.

C. H. Cooley says “co-operation arises when men see that they have, at the same time, sufficient
intelligence and self control to seek this interest through united action: perceived unity of interest
and faculty of organisation are the essential facts in intelligent combination”.

Co-operation thus imposes restraints on the participant. The self cannot have its way entirely if it
is working co-operatively with another self. Co-operation always implies inhibition of certain
ego-centred drives. From the restraint so imposed there arises a moral control which is lacking in
uninhibited conflict.

Co-operation is brought about by several circumstances which are…

(1.) Desire for individual benefits.

(2.) Desire to give.

(3.) Devotion to common purposes.

(4.) Situational necessity.

(5.) Desire to achieve larger goals.

Types of Co-operation:

(1.) Direct co-operation (Those activities in which co-operating individuals do like things together,
i.e. perform identical functions like moving a pile of stones or pushing a motor car out of mud.)

(2.) Indirect co-operation (Those activities in which people do unlike tasks toward a similar end but
each have his own specialised functions. For e.g. when carpenters, plumbers, and masons co-
operate to build a house.)
 92

(3.) Primary co-operation (Co-operation found in primary groups like family.)

(4.) Secondary co-operation (Co-operation found in the secondary groups such as government,
industry, church and trade union etc.)

(5.) Tertiary co-operation (Co-operation found in the interaction between the various big and small
groups to meet a particular situation. Thus, when Russia and America join together to defeat
China in a war, or when a National Front is formed by different political parties to win a poll
against the Congress party. Here the attitude of the co-operating parties are purely opportunistic,
the organisation of their co-operation is both loose and fragile.

Accommodation

Accommodation is resolution of conflicts which generally means adjusting oneself to the new
environment. Adjustment may be to the physical or social environment. Adjustment to the
physical environment takes place through organic or structural modification transmitted by
heredity is termed as adaptation, while adjustment to the social environment is achieved by an
individual through the acquisition of behaviour patterns transmitted to him socially and through
the adoption of new ways of behaving and is termed accommodation.

Animals lower than man adjusts themselves most frequently through adaptation; man does so
chiefly through accommodation as he lives in a truly social environment. Accommodation is a
social process, adaptation is a biological process.

J. M. Baldwin defines accommodation as “acquired changes in the behaviour which enable them
to adjust to their environment”.

Reuter and Hart defines accommodation as “a process is the sequence of steps by which persons
are reconciled to changed conditions of life through the formation of habits and attitudes made
necessary by the changed conditions themselves”.

Mac Iver says “the term accommodation refers particularly to the process in which man attains a
sense of harmony with his environment”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff define accommodation as “the term used by the sociologists to describe the
adjustment of hostile individuals or groups”.

Lundberg says “the word accommodation has been used to designate the adjustments which
people in groups make to relieve the fatigue and tensions of competition and conflict”.

Horton and Hunt define accommodation is “a process of developing temporary working

agreements between conflicting individuals or groups”.

H. T. Mazumdar defines accommodation as “non-violent response or adjustment to a stubborn

situation which cannot be changed or to a situation which has changed as a result of violence and
hostility or as a result of new rules and requirements”.
 93

Gillin and Gillin define accommodation is the process by which competing and conflicting
individuals and groups adjust their relationship to each other in order to overcome the difficulties
which arise in competition, contravention or conflict”.

Sutherland and others define accommodation as “the process by which those once in conflict can
work together in common enterprises”.

Anderson and Parker: “accommodation is the achievement of adjustment between people that
permits harmonious acting together in social situations”.

Mack and Young: “the word accommodation has been used in two senses to indicate a condition
of institutional arrangement and to indicate a process. As a condition, accommodation is the fact
of equilibrium between individuals and groups. As a process it has to do with the conscious
efforts of men to develop such working arrangements among themselves as will suspend conflict
and make their relations more tolerable and less wasteful of energy”.

Park and Burgess: “accommodation is a natural resolution of conflict. In accommodation the

antagonism of the hostile element is for the time being regulated and conflict disappears as over
action although it remains latent as a potential”.

Acclimatization and Naturalisation: Park and Burgess mention two types of adjustments-
adjustment to new natural conditions (acclimatization) and adjustment to new social conditions
(naturalisation). Acclimatisation involves new climate, types of soil, etc. whereas naturalisation
involves adjustment to a new social milieu; i.e. new folkways, mores and institutions. Thus in
acclimatisation the person has to change more or less physiologically, a process we have termed
as adaptation: and in naturalisation he has to undergo changes in attitude and behaviour which
fundamentally involve psychological modification.

Characteristics of Accommodation

(1.) Accommodation is natural result of conflict.

(2.) Accommodation is mainly an unconscious activity.

(3.) Accommodation is universal.

(4.) It is continuous process.

(5.) It is the mixture of both love and hatred.

Forms or Methods of Accommodation

Accommodation is social adaptation that involves the invention or borrowing of devices

whereby the one ethnic group develop modes of life, economic and otherwise that complements
or supplements those of the others. It is primarily concerned with the adjustment issuing from the
conflict between individuals and groups. In society individuals have to resolve their conflicts
 94

sooner or later. This compromise reached by conflicting parties has been termed accommodation
by the sociologists.

As Burgess and Park stated in accommodation the antagonism between conflicting elements is
temporarily regulated. This is why Sumner referred to accommodation as “antagonistic co-
operation”. Accommodation or resolution of conflicts may be brought about in many different
ways and accordingly may assume various forms.

(1.) Yielding to coercion or admitting one’s defeat.

(2.) Compromise. (When combatants are of equal strength).

(3.) Arbitration and conciliation. (This involves attempts on the part of the third party to bring about
an end of the conflict).

(4.) Toleration.

(5.) Conversion. (Adoption of others).

(6.) Rationalisation.

(7.) Super-ordination and subordination.

Universality of Accommodation: Since conflict disturbs the integration of the group and since
social stabilities are required for social order, therefore in all societies efforts have been made to
bring about the resolution of conflicts between antagonistic groups. Society can hardly go on
without accommodation. Accommodation checks conflicts and enables persons and groups to
maintain co-operation in society. Moreover it enables the individuals to adjust themselves to the
changing conditions. Thus it maintains the necessary security of a social order without which it
may be difficult for individuals to carry on their life activities together. So many different
interests and points of view are represented in our heterogeneous, complex society that
accommodation is required if social life is not to be greatly disturbed. Society is essentially the
result of accommodation.

Assimilation

Assimilation is the process whereby persons and groups acquire the culture of the other group in
which they come to live by adopting its attitudes and values, its pattern of thinking and
behaving- in short its way of life.

Park and Burgess- "Assimilation is the process of interpretation and fusion in which persons and
groups acquire the memories, sentiments, attitudes of other persons or groups and by sharing
their experiences and history are incorporated with them in a cultural life”.

Bogardus- “Assimilation is a process whereby attitudes of many persons are united and thus
develop into united group”.

Biesanz- “Assimilation is the social process whereby individuals or groups come to share the
same sentiments and goals”.
 95

Nimkoff- “Assimilation is the process whereby individuals or groups once dissimilar become
similar and identified in their interest and outlook”.

Lundberg- “Assimilation is a word used to designate a process of mutual adjustment through

which culturally different groups gradually obliterate their differences to the point where they are
no longer regarded as socially significant or observable”.

Mack and Young- “Assimilation is the fusion or blending of two previously distinct groups into
one. Obviously, assimilation requires more fundamental changes than the antagonistic co-
operation which are called accommodation”.

Horton and Hunt- “The process of mutual cultural diffusion through which persons and groups
come to share a common culture is called assimilation”.

Fairchild pointed out that this assimilation involves both nationalisation and renationalisation. It
results in the modification and of social attitudes.

When different cultures come into contact originally it is the sentiment of mutual conflict that is
most prominent but they gradually assimilate elements from each other. Under assimilation the
two distinct groups do not just compromise or otherwise agree to get along with each other, they
become so much like that they are no longer distinguishable as separate groups. Like
socialisation, it too is a process of learning but it starts when the individual comes into contact
with other cultures. Assimilation is a social and psychological process.

Hayes holds that assimilation is a result rather than a process of interaction.

Assimilation is not a limited to single field only. The best example of assimilation is that of
foreigners being assimilated in the host culture that is their abandoning their own culture and
taking on that of the host country. But it would be wrong to limit the process of assimilation to
this single field. Assimilation takes place in other cases also. For example children are gradually
assimilated into adult society as they grow up and learn how to behave. Husbands and wives
starting marriage with dissimilar backgrounds often develop a surprising unity of interest and
purpose. In the religious field members of one church may be brought into the field of other by
conversion. Since assimilation is a social process, it is the characteristic of group life in general
and is not limited to particular kinds of groups.

Stages in the process of assimilation: Assimilation is slow and gradual process. It takes quite
some time before individuals or groups once become similar that is become identified in their
interests and outlook. Acculturation is the name given to the stage when one cultural group
which is in contact with another appropriates or borrows from it certain cultural elements and
incorporate them into his own culture; thus modifying it. The adoption of some of the dominant
culture by another group paves the way for absorption of the new cultural group with the
dominant culture. Some traits are readily adopted even if the two groups are only slightly in
contact. The social contacts thus established finally result in assimilation. The speed of the
process of assimilation naturally depends on the nature of the contacts. If contacts are primary,
assimilation occurs naturally and rapidly but if they are secondary, i. e. indirect and superficial
the result is accommodation rather than assimilation.
 96

Hindrance and Aids of Accommodation: Assimilation is a complex process and there are certain
factors which facilitate assimilation and others which hinder or retard it. The rate of assimilation
of a cultural minority depends upon whether the facilitating or retarding factors predominate.
According to Gillin and Gillin, factors favouring assimilation are toleration, equal economic
opportunity, sympathetic attitude on the part of the dominating groups towards the minority
group, exposure to the dominant culture, similarity between the cultures of the minority and
dominant group and amalgamation or intermarriage. Factors hindering or retarding assimilation
are isolating conditions of life, attitudes of superiority on the part of dominant group, excessive
psychological, cultural and social differences between the groups and the prosecution of the
minority group by the majority group. Mac Iver lists the factors which may account for ready
acceptance of some groups and relative antagonism of towards others.

(1.) The state of the development of the society entered.

(2.) Background occupational skills.

(3.) The numbers involved.

(4.) Physical differences.

(5.) Cultural differences.

(6.) The role of semi-community.

Distinction between Accommodation and Assimilation:

(1.) Assimilation is permanent, accommodation is non-permanent.

(2.) Assimilation is a slow process; accommodation may be a sudden process.

(3.) Assimilation is unconscious, accommodation is deliberate.

Disjunctive processes – competition, conflict.

Competition

Competition is the most fundamental form of social struggle. According to Sutherland,
Woodward and Maxwell “competition is an impersonal, unconscious, continuous struggle
between individuals or groups for satisfaction which because of their limited supply, all may not
have”.

Biesanz- “competition is the striving of two or more persons for the same goal which is limited
so that all cannot share it”.

Bogardus- “competition is a content to contain something which does not exist in a quantity
sufficient to meet the demand”.

Majumdar defines competition as the “impersonalised struggle among resembling creatures for
goods and services which are scare or limited in quantity”.
 97

Anderson and Parker- “competition is that form of social action in which we strive against each
other for the possession of or use of so limited material or non-material good”.

Competition is one aspect of struggle which is universal not only in human society but also in the
plant and animal worlds. It is a force which compels people to act against one another. It is the
natural result of universal struggle for existence. It occurs whenever there is an insufficient
supply of anything that human beings desire- insufficient in the sense that all cannot have as
much of it as they wish.

In any society, for example, there are normally more people who want jobs than there are jobs
available, hence there is competition for available places. Among those who are already
employed, there is likewise competition for better jobs. Since scarcity is in a sense an inevitable
condition of social life, consequently, competition of some sort or the other is found in all
societies. There is no competition for sunshine and air which are unlimited. There is thus
competition not only for bread but also for luxuries, power, social position, mates, fame and all
other things which are not available for one’s asking. It is an effort to outdo the competitor in
achieving some mutually desired goal. Its aim not to banish or destroy the opponent, it is not
coercion. The competitors observe rules of competition which eliminate force or fraud. When
these rules are broken, it becomes conflict. Competition is never entirely unrestricted.

Characteristics of Competition

(1.) Competition is impersonal struggle. (Park and Burgess defined competition as interaction
without social contact”. It is an inter-individual struggle that is impersonal.)

(2.) It is an unconscious activity.

(3.) It is universal.

To quote from the monograph prepared by May and Doob “on a social level, individuals
compete for with one another when: (1.) they are striving to achieve the same goal that is scarce;
(2.) they are prevented by the roles of the situation from achieving this goal in equal amounts;
(3.) they perform better when the goal can be achieved in unequal terms; (4.) they have relatively
few psychologically affiliative contacts with one another.

Some thinkers are of the opinion that competition is an innate tendency. According to them, it is
found among all the species. But as a matter of fact, competition is not a inborn tendency rather
it is a social phenomenon. It takes place only when the desired thing is in short supply. It differs
in degree from society to society. Its degree is determined by social values and social structure. It
is culturally pattern process. No society allows it to operate in an unrestricted manner.
Competition can be seen at five levels: economic, cultural, social, political and racial.

Value of Competition: Competition is indispensable in social life. It arises from the fact that the
individuals are capable of independent locomotion and have the capacity for gaining an
individual experience as a result of independent action. Some sociologists are of the opinion that
it is even more basic process than co-operation. Hobbes had remarked that the struggle is the
basic law of life and that earliest man lived in a continual state of warfare. Hume, Hegel,
 98

Rousseau and Bagehot also corroborated the views of Hobbes, later on; the theory of “the
survival of the fittest” which developed as a result of Darwin’s theory of evolution also stressed
the importance of completion in society. It was consequently asserted that if nature is dominated
by conflict this must also be true of human nature and human society. But Kropotkin has pointed
out, it is not competition alone but co-operation also which plays a major role in survival.

Competition performs many useful functions in society. It is extremely dynamic. According to

H. T. Majumdar, “it performs five positive functions. (1.) It helps to determine the status and
location of individual members in a system of hierarchy, (2.) It tends to stimulate economy,
efficiency and investiveness, (3.) It tends to enhance one’s ego, (4.) It prevents undue
concentration of power in an individual or group of individuals and (5.) It creates respect for the
rules of the game.

Functions of competition:

(1.) Assignment of individuals to proper places.

(2.) Source of motivation.

(3.) Conducive to progress.

It may not, however, be presumed that competition is a pre-requisite to social progress.

Mazumdar has mentioned its three negative functions. (1.) It may lead to neurosis through
frustration, (2.) It may lead to monopoly and (3.) It may lead to conflicts.

Competition can be vicious both for individuals and groups. It may create emotional
disturbances. It may develop unfriendly and unfavourable attitudes among the persons or groups
towards one another. Unfair competition has the most disintegrating effects. If uncontrolled it
becomes a conflict involving unethical and sometimes violent practices. In economic sphere
competition results in waste and lack of consideration for the real needs of the people. It can lead
to starvation in the midst of plenty, to fear and insecurity, to instability and panic. It threats
others purely as means and in itself it is devoid of sentiment. Unlimited competition leads to
monopoly. In the economic field businessmen seek to protect themselves against competition,
for e.g. by erecting tariff barriers against foreign competition, by agreeing upon prices.
Labourers unite for protecting their wages and excluding foreign labour and for a number of
other purposes. Bureaucrats protect themselves through their association. Races protect their
interests by excluding others from entering within their fold. Competition and co-operation differ
sharply in social attitudes they foster in the individual.

However no society is exclusively competitive or exclusively co-operative. The social system is

balance between competitive and co-operative forces. But competition should always be healthy
and fair. Only then it can be advantageous both for the individual progress and welfare of the
group. It may also be noted that the organisational trend today is towards forms of control and
organisation that reduce rather than encourage intergroup competition.

Conflict:
 99

Conflict is an ever presenting process in human relations. It has been defined by A. H. Green as
“the deliberate attempt to oppose, resist or coerce the will of another or others.

Gillin and Gillin- “conflict is a social process in which individuals or groups seek their ends by
directly challenging the antagonist by violence or threat of violence”.

As a process it is anti-thesis of co-operation. Almost any human action is likely to thwart the
hopes or interfere with the plans of someone else. Such action becomes conflict, however only of
the deliberate attempt is to oppose.

When candidate secures a job, it implies that the job is denied to others. But in the action of
successful candidate there is no deliberate intent to oppose, resist or coerce and it cannot,
therefore, be called a conflict situation. Conflict is in other words, a competition in its more
occasional, personal and hostile forms.

It is a process of seeking to obtain rewards by eliminating or weakening the competitors.

Through it, one party attempts to destroy or annihilate or at least reduce to a subordinate position
the other party. Further, though normally violence is associated with conflict, it can occur
without it. Civil disobedience and non-violent satyagraha with which Gandhiji fought against the
British imperialism are the best illustrations on the point.

According Mazumdar “conflict is opposition or struggle involving (a) an emotional attitude of

hostility as well as (b) violent interference with one’s autonomous choice”.

Characteristics of Conflict

(1.) Conflict is a conscious action. It is a deliberate intent to oppose.

(2.) Conflict is a personal activity.

(3.) Conflict lacks continuity.

(4.) Conflict is universal.

Causes of Conflict

Conflict is universal and occurs in all times and places.

According to Malthus “reduced supply of the means of subsistence is the cause of conflict”.

According to Darwin “the principles of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest are the
main causes of conflict”.

According to Freud and other psychologists “the innate instinct for aggression is man is the main
cause of conflicts”.

Thus various causes have been mentioned leading to conflicts. It arises primarily from a clash of
interests within groups and societies. Conflicts also ensue as a result of the difference between
the rate of change in the moral norms of a society and men’s desire, hopes, dissatisfactions and
demands. The moral norms that children should obey their parents has persisted in our country
 100

since times historical times but now the younger generation wants to go its own way. In
consequence, there is more parent-youth conflict than even before. Sometimes the moral norms
are so broad in scope that conflicting parties can often claim similar norms to justify their
separate demands. For e.g. the employees would justify their strike on the plea of deserving high
wages in this age of inflating prices whereas the management would justify its stand of reducing
them by advancing the excuse of its deficits in this age of competition. Briefly stated causes of
conflicts are…

(1.) Individual differences. (On account of the individual differences and the failure to accommodate
it, may lead to conflict.)

(2.) Cultural differences. (Cultural differences among the groups and individuals may cause tension
and lead to conflicts.)

(3.) Clash of interests. (The interest of different people or groups occasionally clash. thus the interest
of workers clash with those of the employers which leads to conflict among them.)

(4.) Social change. (Social changes cause cultural lag which leads to conflict. The parent youth
conflict is the result of social change. In short, conflict is an expression of social disequilibrium.)

Types of Conflict

Simmel distinguished four types of conflict: war, feud or fictional strive, litigation and conflict
of impersonal ideals.

(1.) War is the kind of group conflict we are most familiar with. Prior to the development of
international trade, war provided the only means of contact between alien groups. In this case,
war although dissociative in character, has definitely associative effect. Simmel attributed war to
a deep seated antagonistic impulse in man. But to bring this antagonistic impulse to action some
definite objective is needed which may be the desire to gain material interest. It may be said that
the antagonistic impulse provides a foundation for conflict.

(2.) Feud is an intra-group form of war which may arise because of injustice alleged to have been
done by one group to the other.

(3.) Litigation is a judicial form of conflict when someone, individual or group, asserts its claims to
certain rights on the basis of objective factors, subjective factors being excluded.

(4.) Conflicts of personal ideals is a conflict carried on by the individuals not for themselves but for
an ideal. In such a conflict each party attempts to justify truthfulness of its own ideals, for e. g.
the conflict carried on by the Communists and capitalists to prove that their own system can
bring in a better world order.

Gillin and Gillin has mentioned five types of conflict. (1.) Personal conflict, (2.) Racial conflict,
(3.) Class conflict, (4.) Political conflict and (5.) International conflict.

Conflict can also be of the following types.

 101

(1.) Latent and overt conflict: Conflict is usually described as latent or overt. In most cases, long
before conflicts erupts in hostile action; it has existed in latent form in social tension and
dissatisfaction. Latent conflicts become overt conflict when an issue is declared and when hostile
action is taken. The overt conflict occurs when one side or the other feels strong and wishes to
take advantage of this fact. Sometimes actual conflict may exist in latent form for years before
there is a formulation of issue or a crisis. The latent conflict between China and India may
become overt in the form of outbreak of war over the boundary issue.

(2.) Corporate and personal conflict: Conflicts are also classified as corporate and personal.
Corporate conflicts occur among the groups within a society or between two societies. Race
riots, communal upheavals, religious persecution, labour management conflict and war between
nations are examples of corporate conflict.

Personal conflicts occur within the group. Personal conflicts arise on account of various motives,
envy, hostility, betrayal of trust being the most predominant.

Role of Conflict:

Conflict is a fundamental human and societal trait. Some Sociologists like Ratzenhofer and
Gumplowicz regard it as underlying social evolution and progress.

According to Gumplowicz, human societies are characterised by “syngenism”, a primordial

feeling of the members that they belong together. Their development was marked by ceaseless
struggle.

According to Ratzenhofer, the struggle for life takes the form of conflict in interests.

Simmel maintained that a conflict free harmonious group is practically impossibility. There is no
denying the fact that society requires for its formation and growth both harmony and
disharmony, association and dissociation. Conflict serves constructive and positive end.

Mack and Young write, “at its most rudimentary level, conflicts results in the elimination or
annihilation of the opponent. In human society, however most conflicts end in some sort of
agreement or accommodation or in the fusion of the two opposing elements”.

In corporate conflicts, i.e. conflict between groups and societies, solidarity and fellow feelings
are increased. In corporate conflicts each nation gains cohesion and strength through
emphasising its own destiny as against that of other nations. Internal harmony and external
conflict are opposite sides of the same shield. That is why war is held to be inevitable in a world
of sovereign nations. But conflicts which cause war or take hostile form may destroy lives and
destroy lives and property of the people and may cause great psychological and moral damage.
The results of personal conflict i.e. intr-group conflict are largely negative in that such a struggle
lowers the morale and weakens the solidarity of the group.

Personal conflict has its positive side also. The opposition of the individual by the other is the
only way in which the continued relationship can be made personally tolerable.

H. T. Majumdar has mentioned positive functions of conflict.

 102

(1.) Conflict tends to stiffen the morale and promote the solidarity of the in-group.

(2.) Conflict, concluded with victory, leads to the enlargement of the victor group.

(3.) Conflict leads to redefinition of value systems.

(4.) Conflict may lead to the working out of non-violent techniques for resolving crises.

(5.) Conflict may lead to change in the relative status of the conflicting parties.

(6.) Conflict may lead to a new consensus.

Horton and Hunt have classified the effects of conflict.

Integrative Effects Disintegrative Effects

Defines issue. Increases bitterness.
Leads to resolution of issues. Leads to destruction and bloodshed.
Increases group cohesion. Leads to intergroup tension.
Leads to alliances with other groups. Disrupts normal channels of co-operation.
Keeps group alert to members’ interest. Diverts members’ attention from group objectives.

Conflicts have always captured the attention of the people and the society. Conflict assumes that
between two parties there are interests which divide them and the only solution is to eliminate
one or the other. Society makes efforts to control conflict, but it itself has created conflict
solutions and perhaps cannot avoid doing so.

By allowing different status to different occupations, it has laid the basis for envy and
resentment. By giving authority to one person over the other it lays open the door for the abuse
of the authority and consequently retaliation. By creating ends that are competitive, it makes it
possible for competition to take the form of conflict.

The truth is that there are elements of conflict in all situations. It is a part of human society.
Individual can co-operate for certain ends but not for all, they have ends that are mutually
exclusive. For the attainment of these ends they come into conflict with others who are also after
seeking these very ends.

Distinction between Conflict and Competition:

Conflict involves contact; it takes place on a conscious level, it is personal, it involves violence
or at least the threat of violence. Conflict always includes doing something to an adversary.
Much competition, however, occurs without actual knowledge of the existence of others. In
competition two or more parties want something all cannot share, but they do not strive for the
purpose of denying or opposing others. Competition is always governed by moral norms while
much conflict is not so. The desire to gain one’s ends for one’s self or one’s group is often so
strong that competition crosses over into conflict.
 103

Competition is a continuous process, conflict is intermittent. Conflict has the tendency of

occurring again as the differences are seldom resolved permanently. It is these starts and stop
character of conflict which helps to distinguish it from competition. Both Conflict and
Competition can be distinguished as.

(1.) Conflict involves contact, competition does not.

(2.) Conflict takes place on a conscious level, competition is unconscious.

(3.) Conflict is intermittent process, competition is a continuous process.

(4.) Competition is non-violent, conflict may involve violence.

(5.) Conflict disregards social norms; competition does care for these norms.

(6.) Competition is impersonal, conflict becomes personalised.

Co-operation and Conflict go together

Co-operation and conflict are universal elements in social life. According C. H. Cooley, co-
operation and conflict are not separate things but phases of one process which always involves
something of both. He writes “it seems that there must always be an element of conflict in
conflict in our relations with others as well as one of mutual aid; the whole plan of life calls for
it; our very physiognomy reflects it and love and strife sit side by side upon the brow of man.
The forms of opposition change, but the amount of it, if not constant, are at any rate subject to no
general laws of diminution”. “Conflict of some sort is the life of society and progress emerges
from a struggle in which each individual, class or institution seeks to realise its own ideals of
food. The intensity of this struggle varies with the vigour of the people and its cessation, if
conceivable, would be death”.

Co-operation is a condition of conflict. Internal harmony and external conflicts are the opposite
sides of the same shield. It is difficult to eliminate conflict altogether from society. Conflict
threatens group solidarity but despite it all conflict cannot be eliminated. For the realisation of
social standing, the individual comes into conflict with the members of his own group.

Even if open conflict can somehow be eliminated, conflict in its partial form continues. It is an
inescapable part of social life. There is no form of social conflicts that do not involve co-
operative activity.

Sometimes, to unify a society, conflicts are created with outsiders who are made to appear as
enemies. It is difficult to say internal conflicts can consolidate a group internally. It suffers least
from internal conflicts when it is engaged in external conflicts with an enemy. Mac Iver states
that co-operation crossed by conflict marks society whenever it is revealed.

Some more things to be kept in mind

Integration: Strain towards consistency. Integration refers to the harmonizing or unifying

process whereby various structural components of society are properly organised. The aim of
 104

integration is to maintain a harmonious and active relationship between the various structural
components of society. Thus family provides sanctioned sex relationship, care of offspring,
protection, education and recreation etc. religion or church develops a sense of relationship with
the Divine and promotes character building. Integration is the consequence of differentiation and
specialisation. Actually if there are no differentiation and specialisation, there would not be any
need of integration. Complexities of society, cultural heterogeneity, rapidity of social change,
etc. make problems in integration. In order to remove the strains towards anomie and to keep the
society ongoing integration is persistently sought. All programmes to bring about integration or
re-integration involve social planning. It employs research and involves decision and action.

Isolation: The absence of communicative interaction or social contact is isolation. It is a

situation deprived of social contacts. Both the individual and group can be isolated. In both cases
the consequences of isolation are important. Absolute isolation in the sense that the individual
has no contact whatever with other individual at any time. Isolation may be two types- spatial
isolation (It is external, is enforced deprivation of contacts as for criminals when somebody is
banished from community or put to solitary imprisonment.) and organic isolation (means
isolation caused by certain organic defects of the individual such as deafness or blindness. It is
not imposed by an external authority but is organic.). Linguistic isolation has been a much more
important factor in delaying cultural borrowing than the physical isolation. Such linguistic
differences constitute effective barriers to social contact among people who are geographically
near have limited inter group communication, will slow down social change. The practice of
untouchability in India is a form of socially imposed isolation. Isolation prevents cultural
borrowings, but sometimes it is useful aid to social solidarity and cause ethnocentric attitude.

1.5. Functional elements of society – Social Status, Role, Leadership,

Authority. Social Control – Definition, Types – Formal and Informal Social
Control, Agencies of Social Control – Customs, Folk ways, Mores, Values,
Norms, Fashion, Social Conformity and Deviance.
Social Status:

The element of status is an important feature of social stratification. Inequality of status is a
marked feature of every society. Status is a term used to designate the comparative amounts of
prestige, difference or respect accorded to persons who have been assigned different roles in
group or community. The status of a person is high if the role, he is playing is considered
important by the group. If the role is regarded as less high, its performer may be accorded lower
status. Thus the status of a person is based on social evaluations.

Ogburn and Nimkoff- “Status is the rank order position assigned by group to a role or set of
roles”.

Secord and Bukman- “Status is a worth of a person as estimated by a group or class of persons.

Individuals in a society play different roles and societies evaluate these roles differently. Some
roles are regarded as more valuable and the persons who perform these roles are given higher
status. Status is thus created by the opinion of others.
 105

According to MacIver “status is the social position that determines for its possessor, apart from
his personal attribute or social services, a degree of respect, prestige and influence”.

Davis says “status is a position in the general institutional system, recognised and supported by
the entire society spontaneously evolved rather than deliberately created, rooted in folkways and
mores”.

Martindale and Menachesi define status as “a position in social aggregate identified with a
pattern of prestige, symbols and actions”.

According to Green “a status is a position in a social group or grouping, in relation to other

positions held by the other individuals in the group or grouping”.

According H. T. Mazumdar “status means the location of individuals within the group, his place
in the social network of reciprocal obligations and privileges, rights and duties”.

Thus an individual in high status is greeted with respect and enjoys great prestige in society. An
individual wins respect by virtue of his social status. An increase in the individual’s social status
entitles him to more respect than before.

Sometimes the word “status” is used to refer to an individual’s total standing in society. In that
sense, it embraces all his particular statuses and roles especially in so far as they bear upon his
general social standing.

As we all know each person occupies many different roles. He is a father, a doctor, the president
of a rotary club and a player of tennis.

It may be emphasised that statuses and roles are closely related. A status is a position. A role is
manner in which that position is supposed to be filled. Each position has both the status that is
socially given and a role or pattern of behaviour connected with this status that is socially
expected. The execution of role expectation is role performance. Status and roles are the two
sides of a single coin, namely social position, a complex of rights and duties and the actual
behaviour expressing them.

Offices designated the position occupied by a person in all social organisation governed by
specific and definite rules, more generally achieved than ascribed. There is a close
interdependence between the office and the status. Occupational position is often a status and
office both.

There are two ways of attaching status to an office. Firstly, we attach an invidious value to an
office as such independently of who occupies it or how its requirements are carried out (prestige)
and secondly we attach value to the individual according to how well or ill he is carried out the
obligations of that office (esteem). Esteem is related to the expectations of a position, whereas
prestige is attached to the position as such. Prestige does not ensure esteem. All positions carry a
certain amount of prestige, either high or low.

Determinants of Status:
 106

Status which a social class or an individual enjoys depends on the social evaluations whereby the
community regards certain attributes or characteristics more or less valuable than the other ones.
Which attribute contribute to higher status depends up on the persons making status evaluation.
These attributes may relate to values and needs shared by only a small group or by a whole
society.

Further the contribution of attributes to status may differ from group to group. Likewise the
bases of social evaluations may vary from society to society and from time to time within the
same society. Among the several bases for status, the following three have been enumerated by
Secord and Bukman.

(1.) Reward value of high status persons. (Persons are awarded high status if their attributes are
rewarding to each member of the group).

(2.) Rewards received and costs incurred. (A person is evaluated of high status if he receives rewards
which others have not).

(3.) Investment. (Includes such features as race, ethnic background, family, age, sex and seniority.
These features confer upon a person a right to be accorded a certain status).

Thus status arises out of interaction. Persons are accorded higher status to the degree that their
attributes are rewarding to group members. The higher status of a person is determined by the
rewards he receives. Similarly his past history or background also is likely to contribute to his
status.

Persons generally compare themselves and with others with respect of status, that is the costs
incurred, investments accumulated and rewards received. If they find that investments are not
proportional to outcomes, they feel dissatisfied. A group of persons who is superior in such
investments as seniority and knowledge will feel dissatisfied if another group of persons inferior
in seniority and knowledge gets better rewards such as pay and autonomy. Thus in order that
people feel satisfied there should be distributive justice, called by Homans. People feel
discomfort when their profits are out of line with their investments because they were told that
high investments bring high rewards. When this expectation is not met, they naturally feel sore.

It may be noted that people do not compare themselves with anyone and everyone. The people to
whom a person compares himself and the degree to which he makes the comparison are
determined by principles of distributive justice, the person’s perception of his power and the
conditions allowing ease for comparison. The following are the conditions under which status
comparisons are made.

1. Each person must be able to observe the rewards, costs and investments of others so that he can
compare them with his own.

2. Each person must have approximately the same power to obtain rewards or avoid costs.

3. A person will compare himself only with those who rewards and costs are not too different from
his own.
 107

4. Comparisons are likely to be made with persons having similar investments because they should
experience similar rewards and costs.

Sibling rivalry is a major example of status comparison. Because of the tendency to maintain
their status people resist changes potentially disruptive of the status. Such resistance leads to the
stability of the status structure. High status persons maintain the status quo by supporting values
relevant to their status. There is always a desire in man to present himself in such a way as to
maximise his status. It may lead him to misperceive his place and the place of others in the social
hierarchy.

Ascription and Achievement of Status:

There are two processes by which the status of a person in society is formed. These are the
process of ascription and the process of achievement. Every society is confronted with the
necessity of making choice between the two. There may be society in which status is ascribed,
while in another society the status may be achieved. However no society makes exclusive use of
either of these two principles. Every society makes use of both.

(1.) Ascribed Status: The status, which a child receives at the time he is ushered into the process of
socialisation, is his ascribed status since he has not achieved it. This status is ascribed to him at a
time when society knows least about the potentialities of the child. Since the capacities of the
child are not known and since the process of socialisation requires that he is placed in a status,
therefore, the society ascribes to him a status on the basis of its own rules. Generally, at this time
the society considers the factors like sex, age, kinship and social factors. Indian social
stratification is a closed one can be an example for ascribed status.

(2.) Achieved status: While ascription of status is necessary so that the child’s socialisation may start
at the earliest moment, the determination of status cannot, however be left entirely to ascription.
It provides for an orderly and legitimate change of status according to the individual’s
manifestation of talent and effort. It would give fillip to their capacity and prevent incompetents
from the filling the high positions only on the basis of ascribed status. It may be noted that not all
statuses are thrown open to achievement. Only some of them are thrown open to achievement.
The statuses (a) requiring the possession of unusual talent, (b) depending on the informal and
spontaneous approval of the populace and (c) requiring the long and costly education are more
thrown open to achievement.

Social need of status system:

The social status is of great importance both for the individual and the society. An individual
wins respect in society by the virtue of his status. An increase in the status of an individual
entitles him to more respect than before. Marriages in almost all society are contracted on the
basis of social status. The role of an individual determines his status and his role changes along
with a change in his status structure. Status entitles a person to enjoy several prerogatives and
thus an individual gets many direct and indirect advantages from social status.

Status system is a universal characteristic of human society. It constitutes the basic organisation
of group life and determines who is to carry what. Status system is necessary in the
 108

specialisations of functions and in the co-ordination of the specialised functions of a community.

It is important for affording incentives for effort and in promoting the sense of responsibility,
dependability and stability so necessary for co-operative living. A status system which lacks
flexibility and is not subject to change with changing conditions may produce strain upon the
individual and exercise a deleterious effect upon the life of the group.

Role:

If we cast our glance at society, we find that individuals differs not only such attributes as sex,
colour, height, age, etc., but also differ in respect of their occupations. They perform different
functions. Some are professors, others are physicians, some are labourers, others are scientists,
statesmen, soldiers, etc. the social structure functions better if individuals do the jobs assigned to
them properly. An individual cannot perform all the jobs nor can all the individuals be given the
same job. The social system is based on a division of labour in which every person is assigned a
specific task to perform.

The task performed by an individual makes up the role he is expected to play in the life of his
community. Lundberg defines social role as “a pattern of behaviour expected of an individual in
certain group or situation”. It specifies the part of a person is supposed to play in the activities of
his group or community.

Ogburn and Nimkoff define a role as “a set of socially expected and approved behaviour
patterns, consisting of both duties and privileges, associated with particular position in a group”.
Every group defines the expected behaviour for every member. Being a member of a group
means having certain privileges as well as owing certain obligations. Role refers to obligations
which an individual has towards his group.

According to Ginsberg “status is a position and role is the manner in which that position is
supposed to be filled”. In other words role is the functional aspect of status.

According to Davis “role is the manner in which a person actually carries out the requirements of
his position”. Originally, the word ‘role’ meant the ‘roll’ on which an actor’s part was written.
Just as the successful enactment of a drama depends upon how successfully the different actors
play their roles, similarly the smooth running of social life depends on how efficiently and
consistently each member of different groups performs his or her role in the social system. Thus
it may be said that role consists of behaviour expected of an individual in community.

Since the role is a set of expectations, it therefore implies that one role cannot be defined without
referring to another. There cannot be a parent without a child, or an employer without an
employee. In this sense, roles are a series of rights and duties, that is, they represent reciprocal
relations among individuals. All societies reveal a wide range of such reciprocal relations. Thus
in the economic structure, the family structure, the religious structure and political structure,
there operate a system of reciprocal rights and duties.

No one can perform a role unless he possesses attitude to such role. Socialisation mostly consists
of the acquisition of role attitude- the predisposition to act according to the expected pattern.
 109

Thus a role is a pattern or organisation of attitudes predisposing a person in a certain position to

act according to the expectations of others.

Role conflict: A social group carries on its life smoothly and harmoniously to the extent that
roles are clearly assigned and each member accepts and fulfils the assigned roles according to the
expectations. In actual practice, we find that there is doubt or disagreement as to what behaviour
is expected in a given role and sometimes an individual resents the role assigned to him and he
fails to live up to the expectations. Consequently there is much of group tension and conflict. In a
simple culturally homogeneous and relatively stationary society, there may be comparatively less
role conflicts. But in complex and heterogeneous social system as ours the role conflicts have
increased leading to more and more group tensions. In the family, in industry, in government, in
politics, everywhere tension is on the increase. For the individual there is sometimes confusion
about what is appropriate. An individual has to play different roles in different groups. His role
as the head of the family may come into conflict with his role as a doctor. He may at times be
asked to sacrifice his obligations towards the family in the interest of his profession. There are
role conflicts involving two or more individuals who are authorised to perform the same or
highly similar function in the same situation, as when the State and Central Govt. authorities
disagree on who has jurisdiction to maintain peace in a particular case. The roles of two or more
individuals may be in conflict because their functions are not consistent with their status. The
causes of role conflict are…

(1.) Culture heterogeneity and complexity of social system.

(2.) Different roles of an individual in different groups.

(3.) The possibility of confusion over the appropriateness of a case.

(4.) When two or more persons are authorised to perform the functions.

(5.) When functions are below the status of an individual.

(6.) Differences in the expected behaviours from the person assigned a role.

(7.) Differences in the perception of one’s duties and responsibilities.

The existing system of statuses and roles is breaking down, under the necessity of reorganising
our social structure to meet the demands of new technology and of a spatial mobility, while a
new system compatible with actual conditions of modern life has not yet emerged.

The individual today thus finds himself confronted by situations in which he is uncertain of his
own role and that of others. He is not only compelled to make choices but also can feel no
certainty that he has chosen correctly. The result is disappointment and frustration. Sometimes
the strain from conflicting roles may be so great that it may lead to serious personality
consequences.

Roles in modern society are numerous, complex, highly diversified and sometimes in conflict. In
periods of rapid social change, the nervous strain of conflicting role is greater because the
requirements of each role and the expectations of community regarding them are uncertain. To
 110

the extent the different roles are clearly allocated and the rights and duties inherent in each role
clearly understood and to the extent everyone behaves in his role as expected, the social system
will run smoothly and with a minimum of strain on the individual personality.

Leadership

Leadership has played an important role in the human history since earliest times. The historians
have glorified heroes in battle and valued the importance of their deeds for the future
generations. The role of politicians, statesmen and emperors in the development of empires,
territories and nations has received considerable attention in the imperial history. In modern
society too, there is great emphasis on leadership. There is a continual search for man with
leadership qualities.

Bernard says “indeed, I have never observed any leader who was able to state adequately or
intelligently why he was able to be a leader, nor any statement of followers that acceptably
expressed why they followed”.

Leadership is often regarded as the important modifier of organisational behaviour. Thus

superior strength, superior tact, superior intelligence, superior knowledge, superior will-power
any or all of these may be the means to the attainment of leadership. It is something more than
that and that something more is the essence of leadership. It is the capacity to set new goals, to
hold forth new and loftier expectations for the group and to show the group its noble
potentialities that make man a leader.

Leadership has therefore double meaning. The dictionary meaning of the verb ‘to lead’ shows
that the term is used in two different senses. (a) to excel, to be in advance, to be prominent and
(b) ‘to guide others, to be head of an organisation, to hold command”. Thus it is identified with
organisational talent. Thus personal leadership may be distinguished from leadership. The
concept of power and leadership has much in common. Certain people are leaders because they
exercise power. Consequently the exercise of influence is a central part of the definitions of
leadership. According to La-Piere “leadership is a behaviour that affects the behaviour of other
people more than their behaviour affects that of the leader”.

Pigor also says “leadership is a concept, applied to the personality environment relation to
describe the situation when a personality is so placed in the environment that it directs the
feeling and insights and controls others in pursuit of a common cause”. He also said that
leadership “is a concept applied to the personality environment relation to describe the situation
when personality is so placed in the environment that it directs the feeling and insight and
controls others in pursuit of a common cause”.

According to H. T. Mazumar “the leader is one who has power and authority”.

Seckler- Hudson says “leadership in large organisations may be defined as influencing and
energising of people to work together in a common effort to achieve the purposes of the
enterprise”. According to him, leadership depends on three things: (1.) the individual, (2.) the
followers and (3) the conditions.
 111

Leadership is affected by conditions or situations to which power is sometimes blind. Power is

the authority which goes from the downward. It is a two way affair. In no society do the leaders
wield power in a purely arbitrary way. Leader is one who leads the mob must follow it.

Nature of Leadership: (1.) Leadership is not a personality trait; it is a way of relating oneself to
others. Leadership accrues to those who take account of others in ways that facilitate group life
and group cohesion. Leadership is functional in two senses: it is a function of interpersonal
relations; it has a function in group life. (2.) Leadership is situational.

Functions of Leadership: According to Bernard, a leader performs four main functions. (1.) the
determination of objectives, (2.) the manipulation of means, (3.) the control of instrumentality of
action and (4.) the stimulation of co-ordinated actions. Nine dimensions of leadership established
by Ohio State University concerned with leadership in formal organisations, most particularly in
the U. S. Navy from 1946 to 1953, three of them are: (1.) Maintenance of membership, (2.)
objective attainment and (3.) group interaction facilitation.

Types of Leadership:

 E. V. Godwin classified leadership into intellectual and executive.

 Sir Martin M. Conway discussed crowd behaviour gave a threefold classification: Crowd
Representative, Crowd Compeller and Crowd Exponent.

 E. Jenning has come up with a three-way typology of Princes, Heroes and Superman.

 H. D. Lasswell developed a five-fold typology- the Bureaucrat, the Boss, the Diplomat, the
Agitator, the Theorist.

 Mazumdar classified leaders into three kinds- traditional, bureaucratic and charismatic.

 Bogardus has mentioned 5 types of leaders. (1) Direct and Indirect, (2) Social, Executive and
Mental leadership, (3) Partisan and Scientific, (4) Prophets, Saints, Experts and Boss and (5)
Autocratic, Charismatic, Paternal and Democratic leadership.

Leadership Techniques: There are mainly three types of leadership techniques. (1.)
Authoritarian (the leaders determines the policy), (2.) Democratic (leaders encourage
participation of members) and (3.) Laissez-faire (the leaders allow complete freedom for
decisions and activity by keeping his own initiatives and suggestions to a minimum.

Authority

The concept of authority is closely linked with the concept of power. Authority means legitimate
power. Hamuel Arendt portrays authority as a power based on consent.

MacIver “authority is often defined as power, the power to command obedience”.

Frederick says “authority is the capacity to justify by the process of reasoning what is desired
from the point of view of man”.
 112

Herbert A. Simon defines authority as “the power to make decisions which guides the actions of
another. It is the relationship between individuals- one superior and the other subordinate”.

Robert A. Dahl says “legitimate power is often called authority”.

Encyclopaedia of Social Science defines authority as “the capacity innate or acquired for
exercising ascendancy over a group. It is a manifestation of a power and implies obedience to it”.

Sources of Authority: According to Max Weber, there are three sources of political authority,
traditional (When a continuous use of political power or its exercise on the basis of customs and
traditions leads to emergence of right to rule), charismatic (When a right to rule springs from the
dynamism of a political leader) and legal (When the right to rule emerges from the constitutional
rule). According to Peter Oadjupar, power structure or systems are usually hierarchical in the
form with those at the top normally bearing more power than those at the lower level since the
decisions made and enjoyed at the top of the pyramid have more widespread effect than those
made further down”.

Sanction of Authority: (1.) Social sanction, (2.) Economic security and Status, (3) Sanction of
purpose and (4.) Psychological sanction.

Kinds of Authority:

(1.) Authority based on force: (it is generally illegitimate).

(2.) Constitutional.

(3.) Charismatic authority. (The right to rule merges from a charismatic leader. It is charismatic
authority. Max Weber says “charismatic authority rests on the devotion to the specific and
exceptional heroism or exemplary character of an individual person”.

(4.) Religious authority.

(5.) Divine right authority.

(6.) Ancestral heritage authority.

(7.) Authority of the elite.

(8.) Traditional authority.

(9.) Rational legal authority. (Based on laws and exists mainly in a democratic system).

Characteristics of authority: legitimacy, dominance, informality, rationality and

accountability.

Legitimacy: The word ‘legitimacy’ has been derived from the Latin word “legitimas”. During
middle ages it was interpreted as ‘lawful’. Cicero used the word ‘legitimum’ to denote the power
constituted by law. Later on the word ‘legitimacy’ was used for traditional procedures,
 113

constitutional principles and adoption to traditions. Consent was considered as the essence of the
legitimate rule. In the modern age it was Max Weber to first enunciate the concept of
‘legitimacy’ as a universal concept. According to Weber, “power is effective only if it is
legitimate”. According to Weber, there are three sources of legitimacy- tradition, exceptional
personal qualities and legality. David Easton classifies legitimacy into ideological, structural and
personal.

Social Control – Definition, Types – Formal and Informal Social Control,

Agencies of Social Control – Customs, Folk ways, Mores, Values, Norms and
Fashion:

Social Control:

Any society must have harmony and order. Where there is no society without harmony and
order, since society is a harmonious organisation of human relationships. Unless the individuals
live up to the prescribed norms of conduct and unless their self seeking impulses are subjugated
to the welfare of the whole it would be difficult to maintain effectively the social organisation.
Society in order to exist and progress has to exercise certain control over its members since any
marked deviation from the established ways is considered a threat to its welfare. Such control
has been termed as social control.

Social control is the control which the society exercises over the behaviour of its members
through various mechanisms. The term social control is used by Sociologists in a broad sense.
MacIver defined social control as “the way in which entire social order coheres and maintains
itself- how it operates as a whole, as a changing equilibrium”.

Karl Mannheim defines social control as “the sum of those methods by which a society tries to
influence human behaviour to maintain a given order”.

Ogburn and Nimkoff define social control as “the patterns of pressure which a society exerts to
maintain order and established rules”.

Three dimensions of social control: social control is an influence (may be exerted through public
opinion, coercion, social suggestion, religion, appeal to reason, or any other method), the
influence is exerted by society (group is better able to exercise influence over the individual than
a single individual) and the influence is exercised for promoting the welfare of the group as a
whole.

Development of the concept of social control: Every society has tried to control the behaviour
of its members. In the earliest and primitive society social control existed as a powerful force in
organising socio-cultural behaviour. From the birth to death man is surrounded by social control
of which he may be unaware. However, it is only recently that the concept of social control has
received any formal statement, although it is foreshadowed in Plato’s “Republic”, (369 B. C.)
and in Comte’s “Positive Philosophy” (1830-1842). Lester F. Ward in his book “Dynamic
Sociology” (1883), greatly clarified the concept.
 114

It was in 1894 that the term ‘social control’ was used for the first time by Small and Vincent,
while discussing the effect of authority upon social behaviour, these authors in the book
‘introduction to the study of society.

William Graham Sumner’s “Folkways” was published in 1906, in which he laid emphasis on
how folkways and institutions limit the behaviour of individuals. To quote him, “the mores can
make anything right and prevent condemnation of anything”. According to him “social
behaviour cannot be understood without a study of folkways and mores which determine
whether society will encourage or inhibit any specific item of behaviour”.

Need of Social Control: (1.) To maintain the old order, (2) To establish Social Unity, (3.) To
regulate or control individual behaviour, (4.) To provide social sanction and (5.) To check
cultural mal-adjustment.

E. A. Ross has described a number of means that have been employed by social groups
throughout the human history to keep individuals under control. The important among them are
public opinion, law, custom, religion, morality, social suggestion, personality, folkways and
mores.

E. C. Hayes, another American Sociologist, distinguished between by sanctions and control by

suggestion and imitation. By control by sanctions he meant a system of rewards and
punishments. According to him education is the most effective means of control and family is
the most significant agency.

Karl Mannheim distinguished between direct means of social control and indirect means of
social control.

Kimball Young classified the means of social control into positive and negative. Reward is a
positive means while punishment is a negative means.

Luther L. Bernard distinguished between unconscious (customs, tradition and convention) and
conscious means of social control.

F. E. Lumley classified the means of social control into those based upon force and those
founded on symbols.

Types of Social Control: Formal Social Control

The state makes use of law, legislation, military force, police force, administrative devices, etc.,
for the purpose of social control. Similarly, different political, religious, economic, cultural and
other associations and institutions also institute formal control over the behaviour of the
members. Formal control is deliberately created. Various rules are laid down to make it specific.
The necessity of following formal control or rules is clearly stated by associations and
institutions. Violators of formal control are given punishments depending upon the nature and
type of violation. The organisation that makes use of formal social control may even create a
body of officials vested with power to enforce control as we find it in the case of state which has
 115

established the police, military force, etc. In brief, an association, whether it is a state or a bank,
or an army, or a factory or anything has its own norms through which it controls the behaviour of
the members. All these come under formal control. Formal control has become a necessity in the
modern complex societies in which interaction is mostly personal. The means of informal control
are belief, social suggestions, ideologies, folkways, mores, customs, religion, art and literature,
humour and satire, public opinion, etc.

Formal Social Control:

Informal social control includes sympathy, sociability, resentment, the sense of justice, public
opinion, folkways, mores, customs, religion, etc., These are not purposefully created. Nothing
could be said with certainty regarding their origin. They arise on their own way and in course of
time gain currency and popularity. They become deep rooted with people in their practices. No
specific punishment would be given to the violators of informal social control. Still they are
more effective than formal means of social control. They do not require any extra staff to enforce
them as it is so in the case of formal control. They do not have the physical force to enforce
conformity to them. Hence people may not observe them or go against them without being
physically punished for the same. Faith in religion, moral convictions, public opinion, artistic
standard and the general state of enlightenment are found to be more important in informal
control.

Informal control is more effective in primary social groups such as family, neighbourhood, tribe,
rural community where interaction takes place on a personal basis. Whenever the group or the
society becomes larger (in terms of population) and more complex, the informal devices of
control become less effective. Simple gossip and slander and censure can correct an erring
ruralite but not an urban citizen. The anonymity of city life which has added to the confidence of
the individual that he could commit an offence without being noticed or caught by others who
are mostly engaged in their own business, contribute to the non-effectiveness of informal control.
Hence informal methods have given place to the formal ones such as law, education, coercion
and codes though less effective informal control also functions along with formal control in
urban areas in regulating people’s activities. The means of formal means of social control are
law, education, coercion, etc.

Agencies of Social Control– Customs, Folk ways, Mores, Values, Norms and
Fashion.

Customs:

Like folkways and mores, customs also represent one of the types of informal means of social
control. They are universal and pervasive as those of folkways and mores. Customs are socially
accepted ways in which people do things together in personal contacts.

MacIver and Page have pointed out; groups, institutions and association sustain their formal
order by means of an intricate complex of usages and practices. Such accepted procedures or
 116

practices of eating, conversing, meeting people, training the young, caring for the aged, playing,
working, etc., can be called customs.

According to MacIver and Page “the socially accredited ways of acting are customs of the
society”.

According to Kingsley Davis “custom refers primarily to practices that have often been repeated
by a multitude of generations, practices that tend to be followed simply because that they have
been followed in the past”.

Duncan Mitchell in his Dictionary of Sociology writes: “the term custom refers to established
modes of thought and action”.

Lundberg says that customs are those “folkways that persist over relatively long periods of time
so as to attain a degree of formal organisation and so as to be passed down from one generation
to another”.

In simple words, customs are the long established habits and usages of the people.

Nature of Custom:

(1.) Custom is a social phenomenon,

(2.) Customs are followed by people mostly unconsciously,

(3.) Customs are varied in nature,

(4.) The origin of custom is obscure,

(5.) Customs are relatively durable,

(6.) All customs are not irrational.

Social Importance of Custom:

(1.) Customs regulate our social life.

(2.) Customs constitute the treasury of our social heritage.

(3.) Customs are basic to our collective life.

(4.) Customs support law.

Customs and Habits: Customs and habits are closely related. MacIver and Page define habit as
“means an acquired facility to act in a certain manner without resort to deliberation and thought”.
Persons tend to react in the manner to which they have become accustomed. e.g., smoking,
drinking coffee or tea regularly, reading newspaper daily, etc. Habit is second nature with us.
When once they are developed they tend to become permanent. Then it becomes difficult for us
 117

to act in a way different from the habitual ways. It is strongly established and deeply rooted
mode of response. As MacIver and Page have pointed out that “habit is the instrument of life, it
economise energy, reduces drudgery and saves the needles expenditure of thought”.

(1.) Custom is a social phenomenon, whereas habit is an individual phenomenon.

(2.) Custom is socially recognised, habit does not require such recognition.

(3.) Custom is normative in nature; habit is not normative in nature.

(4.) Custom contributes to the stability of the social order; habit can only facilitate individual
activity.

(5.) Customs are socially inherited, whereas habits are learnt individually.

Folk ways:

The term “folkways” was introduced into Sociology by W. G. Sumner in his book ‘Folkways’
published in 1906. The word means literally ‘the ways of the folk’. ‘Folk’ means people and
‘ways’ refers to the behavioural habits. Folkways are the norms to which we conform because it
is customary to do so in our society.

Folkways are the accepted ways of behaviour. According to Sumner folkways represent man’s
unique means of adapting himself to the environment. The term is often broadly used to include
customs, conventions, usages, etiquettes, etc. it includes several modes of behaviour which men
have evolved to meet the needs of their social life. e.g., the ways of eating, talking, dressing,
playing, walking, working, greeting, conversing, expressing love and affection, etc. represent
folkways.

Nature of Folkways:

(1.) Social in nature.

(2.) Repetitive in nature.

(3.) Unplanned in origin.

(4.) Informal enforcement.

(5.) Folkways differ from group to group.

(6.) Folkways are numerous.

(7.) Folkways are subject to change.

Social Importance of Folkways: Folkways are the foundation of every culture. When fully
assimilated they become personal habits. They are generally observed by the people. Hence all
are free to solve problems and strive towards individual and collective goals. They have reduced
 118

much of our mental strain and nervous tension by helping us to handle social relations in a
comfortable way. Sumner believed that “the life of society consists in making folkways and
applying them. The science of society must be construed as the study of them”.

Folkways have become a universal characteristic of human societies. Hence they constitute an
important part of the social structure. They contribute to the order and stability of social
relations. Human infants learn the folkways through the elders as naturally as they grow older.
They become a part and parcel of the personality of the infants through the process of
socialisation. They learn different folkways at different stages relevant to their class, caste, class,
racial, ethnic and other statuses. We are made to follow them because they are binding. They
become with us a matter of habit. They come to form the unstated premises in our mental life.
They provide predictability to both of our behaviour and that of others. As one of the types of
informal means of social control, folkways have assumed importance in the study of social
control.

Mores

‘Mores’ or ‘morals’ represent another category of norms. When folkways act as regulators of
behaviour then they become mores. Mores is a term used to denote the behaviour patterns which
are not only acceptable but are prescribed. Mores are considered to be essential for group
welfare. Sumner applied the term mores (singular more) to those folkways which are considered
by the group to be essential for its welfare and existence. When the elements of truth and right
are developed into doctrines of welfare, the folkways are raised to another plane- to the plane of
mores. Mores represent the living character of the group. They are always considered as ‘right’
by the people who share them. They are normally right and their violation morally wrong. Hence
they are more compulsive in nature. Mores contribute to the solidarity and harmony of the group.
They help individuals to identify themselves with the group. Every group has its own mores.
There are mores for sex, for all ages, for all classes, for all families so on.

Mores help the individuals to realise that community living or collective life is possible only
when one conforms to the norms. Mores weld the individual with the group or society without
damaging his personal liberty. Individual learns through mores that the society is not against
him. They differ from place to place and time to time. They become in course of time the basis
of law. Laws are often called modified mores.

According to MacIver and Page, “when the folkways have added to them conceptions of group
welfare, standard of right and wrong, they are converted into mores”.

Gillin and Gillin say that “mores are those customs and group routines which are thought by the
members of the society to be necessary to the group’s continued existence”.

In simple words, folkways clearly represent the group standards, the group sense of what is
fitting; right and conducive to well-being, then they become mores.
 119

Types of mores: Positive mores always prescribe behaviour patterns. They represent the ‘do’s.
They give instructions and provide guidance for the people to behave in a particular way.
Examples: respecting elders, protecting children, taking care of the diseased and aged people,
loving one’s country, doing service to the society, worshiping God, speaking the truth, leading a
righteous life, etc. Negative mores prescribe behaviour patterns. They represent ‘don’ts’. They
are often called ‘taboos’. Taboos forbid or prohibit certain behaviour patterns. Taboos put severe
restrictions on the range of one’s behaviour. Examples: Don’t appear before the people without
dress, don’t b cruel to the wife and children, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t tell lies,
don’t be irreligious, don’t disrespect God, don’t be unpatriotic, etc.

Nature and Characteristics of mores:

(1.) Mores are the regulators of our social life.

(2.) Mores are relatively more persistent.

(3.) Mores vary from group to group.

(4.) Mores are backed by values and religion.

Social importance of mores: MacIver and Page have mentioned the following social functions
of mores.

(1.) Mores determine much of our individual behaviour.

(2.) Mores identify individual with the group.

(3.) Mores are the guardians of social solidarity.

With the evolution of society, mores have become more specialised. Their control on the
civilised and advanced people is also diminishing. Hence they are supplemented with laws and
legislations.

Folkways and mores:

(1.) Mores are relatively wider and more general in character than the folkways.

(2.) Mores imply a value judgement about the folkways.

(3.) Out of the mores comes our profound conviction of right and wrong and not out of the folkways.

(4.) An individual may disobey the ordinary folkways without incurring any severe punishment. But
violation of the mores brings him strong disapproval and severe punishment.

(5.) Mores are more compulsive, regulative and rigid than the folkways. Hence mores are effective
and influential in moulding our character and restricting our tendencies.
 120

(6.) As Sumner has suggested when the folkways take on a philosophy of right living and life policy
of welfare, folkways become mores. Hence mores always contain a welfare element in them.

(7.) Folkways are less deeply rooted in society and change more rapidly. On the other hand mores
deeply rooted in society and change less frequently. Folkways may change with one’s social
status and occupational position. But mores do not change in that manner for they are permanent
standards of right conduct.

As Sumner has remarked our conceptions of right and wrong, proper and improper are mostly
determined by the folkways and mores. They can make anything right and wrong. Of the two,
mores are more dominant than folkways. Even laws are often called the ‘codified mores’.

Values:

Social values form an important part of culture of a society. Social values, norms and institutions
explain the way in which social process operate in a given society. They are social sources of
pattered interaction. Values account for the stability of the social order. They provide the general
guidelines for conduct. In doing so, they facilitate social control. Values are the criteria people
use in assessing their daily lives, arranging their priorities, measuring their pleasures and pains,
choosing between alternative courses of action.

Young and Mack define values as “assumptions, highly unconscious of what is right and
important”.

Michael Haralambos defines values as “a belief that something is good and worthwhile. It
defines what is worth having and worth striving for”.

In simple words values may be defined as a measure of goodness and desirability. Values of a
society provide goals or ends for its members to aim for. These goals and ends are to be pursued
in different contexts and situations. If the dominant value is success, then it expects all
individuals to become successful at school, in work, at sports and in life, in general. Values
provide the general guidelines for the behaviour of the people. Thus values such as respect for
human dignity, fundamental rights, private property, patriotism, fidelity to the wife or to the
husband, religiosity, sacrifice, helpfulness, co-operation, individual enterprise, free marital
selection, individuality, social inequality, privacy, democracy, etc. guide our behaviour in
various ways.

Functions of values:

(1.) Values provide goals and ends for the members to aim for.

(2.) Values provide for stabilities and uniformities in group interaction.

(3.) Values bring legitimacy to the rules that govern specific activities.

(4.) Values help to bring about some kind of adjustment between different sets of rules.
 121

Four Aspects of Values:

(1.) General Values: Values such as democracy, freedom, the right to dissent, respect for
fundamental rights and dignity for labour, etc., for example are very general in character. These
values are abstract in nature and they pervade many aspects of life. A large proportion of values
are found to be very general in nature. Sociologically these are more significant.

(2.) Specific Values: Values are often stated in specific terms. For example, we may value physical
health or affluence. More specifically, we may value silk or nylon or writing of a particular
novelist over that of another. Values normally range from highly abstract to specific levels.

(3.) Means values are instrumental values. They are sought as part of the effort to achieve other
values.

(4.) End values are more general and more important from the point of the views of the groups who
are doing the valuing works. For example, if health is the value, then the maintenance of good
nutrition, securing proper rest, avoidance of alcoholic drinks and addictions, doing proper
exercises regularly, etc. become means to that end. This difference is based on contexts and
situations. But it helps us to understand how the values are patterned and how one is related to
another.

(5.) Dominant values are those values which influence and condition the behaviour of the people to a
great extent. Sociologist Williams has suggested the criteria for dominant values that are
extensiveness, duration, intensity and prestige of value carriers.

(6.) Ultimate values refer to those values of the group that give meaning, substance and direction to
the lives of the people.

(7.) Explicit and implicit values: Most of the social values are clearly stated and explicitly held. They
are deliberatively taught to the children. Through official, governmental and other organisational
means they are reinforced to the adults. They are also promoted through mass media. Example:
democracy, freedom, fundamental rights, social equality, etc. These values are explicitly held
and cherished. Some values are implicitly held by the people. Public leaders, spokesmen for the
society and even the religious leaders may not stress up on these much. They may even ignore
them. For example, respect for elders and conformity, taking care of old parents, respect for the
authority, etc. are values implicitly held in our society.

Values may often conflict with one another. In complex societies we generally observe one value
system but more than one. We find multiple, overlapping and sometimes even opposing value
systems in the same society.

Norms:

The concept of ‘social norms’ is of special interest for Sociology because they constitute the very
foundation of the social structure. The primary task of sociology is to discover the sources of
order that society exhibits. Norms here represent such a source of social order. No society or and
 122

no social group can exist without social norms. Norms have made it possible the elderly social
intercourse of people in societies. Hence, everywhere they serve the individual as guides to
conduct. They are generally known as standards of behaviour.

The term ‘social norm’ is relatively used by M. Sherif in “the psychology of social norms’ in
1936 to describe the common standards or ideas which guide members responses in all
established groups. Today the word norm is very often used as a genetic term to represent
folkways, mores, laws, customs, etc. If today, some action is called a norm or normative it only
emphasises that it conforms to community expectations of behaviour. The degree of conformity
may, however, vary very much.

Social norm refers to the group shared standards of behaviour. Norms represent standardised
generalisation concerning expected modes of behaviour. They are based on social values. A
norm is a pattern setting limits on individual behaviour. Norms are the blue prints for behaviour.
They determine, guide, control and also predict human behaviour. Norms are group shared
expectations. Example, a good citizen always respect laws, a gentleman pays his debts, younger
one must always respect the elderly people, one is supposed to be quite and respectful and not to
disturb others in a place of worship, a lawyer must not produce damaging evidences in the court
against his own client.

According to Young and Mack “norms refers to “the group shared expectations”.

According to H. M. Johson, “a norm is an abstract pattern held in the mind, which sets certain
limits for behaviour”.

Personal or Private Norms and Social Norms: Private norms are purely individual in character
and they reside with individuals only. They may influence only the behaviour of the individual
concerned. Operative social norms are always backed by sanctions. Because of the sanctions, the
violators of the norms suffer some penalties in the group, while those who conform are awarded.

Social Norms and Values: Values may be defined as measures of goodness or desirability. They
provide general guidelines for conduct. In this sense they are often referred to as “higher order
norms”. But norms are given much more specific meaning. They define appropriate and
acceptable behaviour in particular situations. Values are cherished only through the observance
of norms.

Characteristics of Social Norms:

(1.) Social norms are universal.

(2.) Norms are related to factual order.

(3.) Norms incorporate value judgements.

(4.) Norms are relative to situations and groups.

(5.) Norms are not always obeyed by all.

 123

(6.) Norms vary with sanctions.

(7.) Norms are normally internalised by people.

Functional importance of Social Norm:

(1.) Norms assist survival.

(2.) Norm less society is impossibility.

(3.) Norms guide behaviour.

(4.) Norms permit efficient functioning.

(5.) Norms help the maintenance of social order.

(6.) Norms give cohesion to society.

(7.) Norms help self control.

Institutionalisation refers to the process of institutionalisation of norms. The term norm refers
to “an abstract pattern held in the mind that set certain limits for behaviour”. The tem institution
refers to “recognised normative pattern of a society or part of a society”. The term
institutionalisation refers to the process in which norms become institutionalised that is when
they are sanctioned b group or its part and accepted and internalised by a large number of
members.

Associational Norms: Modern civilised society consists of a large number of organised as well
as unorganised groups. All organised groups have their own rules and regulations. These formal
rules or norms define the mutual rights and obligations of the members including their obligation
towards the association or group. Such norms are called associative norms. The nature of these
norms can be better understood by contrasting them with norms of the state technically known as
laws.

Social Norms and Anomie: The French Sociologist Emile Durkheim used the term “anomie”
for the first time in his book “Division of Labour in Society” (1983) and again in his sociological
study of suicide (1897). According to Durkheim, anomie refers to “any state where there are
unclear, conflicting, or un-integrated norms, in which the individual had no morally significant
relations with others or in which there were no limits set to the attainment of pleasure”. Anomie
literally means normlessness. It signifies a state of normlessness in both the society and the
individual. In such a state social norms become confused or breakdown and people feel detached
from their own fellows. Having little commitment to shared norms, people lack social guidelines
for personal conduct. They are inclined to pursue their private interests without regarding for the
interest of the society as a whole. Social control of individual becomes ineffective and hence the
society is threatened with or even disorganisation.
 124

Robert K. Merton stresses upon two factors that produce anomie conditions. They are role
conflict or conflict of norms and incompatibility between goals and means.

Fashion:

Fashion is an important means of social control. It determines our speech, opinion, belief,
recreation, dress, music, art and literature. Fashion may be defined as the permitted range of
variation around a norm. People want to be like their associate and friends and also want to be
different from them. Fashion is a device beautifully suited to reconcile these opposing
tendencies. Fashion permits and regulates variety and thereby avoids a dull and deadening
uniformity. They help us to express our individuality without going against norms. In
conforming to fashion we imitate our contemporaries. Sanctions that support conformity to
fashion in dress are very powerful.

Herbert Spencer regarded fashion as a leveller of custom. MacIver has described fashion as “the
socially approved sequence of variation on a customary them”.

Kimball and Young define fashion as “the current or prevailing usage, mode, manner, or
characteristic of expression, presentation or conception of those particular cultural traits which
custom itself allows to change”.

Fashion implies certain habits upon which fashionable changes flourish. It is a compromise
between desire for novelty and desire for conformity. It is a transitory accepted change on a
permanent line of behaviour. Thus wearing of nylon sari, putting on high heeled shoes, having
bobbed hair, playing cricket, using painting to decorate the drawing room, going in pair are
examples of fashion.

Fashion is not something which society just tolerate but it is something that society accepts. It
has an element of social sanction behind it; if it is not so then fashion would fall into the category
of cynicism.

Characteristics of fashion:

(1.) Fashion is a group choice.

(2.) Fashion is changeable.

(3.) The element of utility may or may not be present in fashion.

(4.) Fashions are all pervading.

(5.) Uniformity.

(6.) Maddening tempo.

 125

Difference between Custom and Fashion:

(1.) Custom is enduring, fashion is changeable.

(2.) Custom is spontaneous, fashion is artificial.

(3.) Custom stands for sociality, fashion for individuality.

(4.) Custom is concerned with important matters, fashion with frivolous ones.

(5.) Fashion grows where custom break off.

Fashion in modern society: Fashion is more prevalent in modern society than in primitive tribes
or peasant communities. The following are the reasons.

(1.) Middle class structure.

(2.) Affluence.

(3.) Means of communication.

The social role of fashion:

(1.) Fashion satisfies two strong demands of social man.

(2.) Fashion facilitates social change by providing a transitional stage from custom to another.

(3.) Fashion radiates generally from the higher class people, the so-called prestige owning people.

Social Conformity:

The society maintains its order by means of normative system. Normative system refers to the
system of rules which people are expected to accept, obey and appreciate. Most of the people
follow most of the rules. But some may go against or violate some of the rules. When the people
act in consonance with the norms they become ‘conformity’, but when they go against them,
they become ‘deviants’.

Conformity is action that is action oriented to a social norm or norms and falls within the range
of behaviour permitted by the norm. When a person accepts both goal and means the result is
generally conformity.

Conformity thus implies behaving in accordance with the norm. It is not limited to the external
behaviour alone. It implies that individual consciously approves of a particular behaviour and is
prepared to follow the same. It does not mean that the norms must always be present in his mind.
On the contrary, we do a lot of activities in accordance with the norms without being sufficiently
aware of the norms. Example: Walking on the right side of the road and riding on its left side,
showing respect to the national flag when it is hoisted in a programme, respecting elders,
 126

dressing in modest way, etc. Our behaviour is in conformity with the rules that we know. But we
are not sure that in our behaviour the norms are always alive at the level of our consciousness.

Causes of conformity: Harry M. Johnson has spoken of a few causes of conformity to the social
norms. They are socialisation, insulation, hierarchy of norms, social control, ideology, vested
interest and other causes (indoctrination, habituation, utility and group identification).

Deviance:

It is true that the social order is mainly maintained by means of social control and socialisation.
It is equally true that most of the people follow or conform to most of the norms of most of the
times. But all people or most of the people do not conform to all the norms always. As Young
and Mack have pointed out, “no norm is always obeyed; no individual always conforms to every
set of expectations’. Hence deviance that is the act of going against the rules or norms is there
everywhere. Deviant behaviours such as knavery, corruption, cunningness, sneakiness,
wickedness, gambling, drunkenness, etc. go along with conformity. Deviance one shape or
another is found everywhere.

Horton and Hunt define deviance as “any failure to conform to customary norms”.

Orville G. Brim Jr. defines deviance as “failure to conform to the expectations of other persons”.

Louis Weston defines deviance as “a behaviour that is contrary to the standards of conduct or
social expectations of a given group or society”.

In simple word deviance can be defined as the act of going against the group shared expectations
and norms.

Types of Deviance:

(1.) Innovation: Without conform the norms some persons may innovate or create his own means for
achieving the goals, in this sense he becomes deviant.

(2.) Ritualism: Sometimes persons give up important social values yet do not lip service to them by
carefully observing related norms of behaviour. They are ritualists. They abandon the pursuit of
success as fruitless and yet strictly adhere to the prescribed means. They regard rules as sacred.
They tend to break out of their commitment to the rules. Ritualists are also deviants because such
persons refuse to take courageous and possibly dangerous action demanded by true adherence to
values. On the other hand, they take refuge in neutral but safe behaviour which looks like decent
conformity. Example: a person stabbed to death within the sight of a number of neighbours who
refuse to get themselves involved in the case. This kind of behaviour is ritualistic. It is difficult to
criticise such behaviour harshly. It is a form of deviance because norms exist or should exist to
serve values. They should not eclipse values or transcend them.

(3.) Retreatism: The rejection of both values and norm is retreatism. It is in one way or another of
dropping out of society. The person who drops out resigns so to speak. Those who retreat from
 127

the society refuse to pursue wealth either by legal or illegal means. They also refuse to lead a
conventional life. They are unable to get success honestly. They are unable to break the
conventional procedure because of the strongly internalised norm. The best solution to their
dilemma is to drop out of society. Hence retreatism is a kind of passive rejection of the goal of
success and of the respectable occupational activities. According to Merton, in this category fall
“some of the adaptive activities of psychotics, autists, pariahs, outcastes, vagrants, vagabonds,
tramps, chronic drunkards and drug addicts”. Such people receive strong disapproval because
they care little of the values most people live by.

(4.) Rebellion: Rebellion is another response open to those who reject both ends and means. Some
people reject the prevailing order and engage in efforts to replace that order. They try to
substitute the new ends and means for those that exist. They are called rebels. Rebellion is
produced by alienation from both values and norms.

Factors facilitate Deviance: Social deviance refers to the non-conformity to or violating of the
norms of the group. H. M. Johnson had listed a few factors that facilitate deviance.

(1.) Faulty socialisation.

(2.) Weak sanctions. (Sanctions refers to the rewards or punishments used to establish social control
or to enforce norms in society. If the positive sanctions (reward) for conformity and negative
sanctions (punishment) for deviance are weak, individual may simply neglect them).

(3.) Poor enforcement.

(4.) Ease of rationalism. (The violators of norms try to soothe or satisfy their conscience by inventing
some plausible rationalisations. Such people have constructed an intricate system of ego defence
which they use to brush aside the reactions and comments of the people).

(5.) Unjust or Corrupt enforcement.

(6.) Ambivalence of the agents of social control.

(7.) Sub-cultural support of deviance.

(8.) Sentiments of loyalty to deviant groups.

(9.) Indefinite range of norms.

(10.) Secrecy of violation.

Social significance of Deviant behaviour: Deviance poses a danger to the stability of social
order. It may be destructive of organisation in three ways.

(1.) Deviance is more or less a loss or defect of a critical part in a complicated mechanism.

(2.) Deviance may undermine organisation by destroying people’s willingness to play their parts.
 128

(3.) The most destructive impact of deviance on organisation is through its impact on trust, on
confidence that others will by and large play by the rules.

Deviance in Support of Organisation:

(1.) Deviance versus ‘red tape’ or official delay.

(2.) Deviance as a safety valve.

(3.) Deviance may clarify the rules.

(4.) Deviance helps the unity of the group.

(5.) Deviance also helps to unite the group on behalf of the deviant.

(6.) The contrary effect: increasing conformity.

(7.) A warning signal.

Deviant behaviour is one way of adapting a culture to a social change. Deviant behaviour thus
often represents tomorrow’s adaptations in their beginnings. Without any deviant behaviour, it
would be difficult to adopt a culture to changing needs and circumstances. A changing therefore
needs deviant behaviour. But how much and what kinds are debatable questions. Still it can be
said that much deviation is destructive in nature. Only some deviation is socially useful for they
help us to forecast tomorrow’s norms.
129