Vijai P. Singh - Caste, Class and Democracy

First published 2009 by Transaction Publishers

Published 2017 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2007045835

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Sing, Vijai P.
Caste, class and democracy : changes in a stratification system /
Vijai P. Singh.
p. cm.
Originally published: Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Pub. Co., cl976. Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-87073-577-6
1. Social mobilityIndiaCase studies. 2. CasteIndia I. Title.

HN690.Z9S657 2008
305.5130954dc22

2007045835

ISBN 13: 978-0-87073-577-6 (pbk)

This book examines the changes in the social stratification of three Indian communities between 19301965. Important studies dealing with different aspects of stratification carried out in various parts of India are reviewed, to provide some continuity with previous research on the one hand and to present a broader picture of stratification on the other.

The nature of stratification is studied by investigating the degree of association among the relevant stratification dimensions. The changes in the degree of such associations and mobility on various dimensions across time demonstrate the changing patterns of the status system. During three and one-half decades the amount of inequalities in both caste status and political power declined. Intergenerational mobility in both education and occupation increased, but concomitantly, the reduced inequalities became at once more ordered and also more rigid with respect to the constraints of caste. It was noted, for instance, that sons with higher caste background were more likely to acquire higher educational and occupational status than others. During the later period, higher caste persons used their resources generously and encouraged their sons to aspire for higher education and prestigious jobs. Thus, the ascriptive advantages were used to acquire superior status in areas essentially based on achievement. For the same reason, and despite important institutional and legislative changes at the village level, lower caste persons experienced but limited success in improving their position in the stratification system. Their future now would seem to depend mainly upon employment opportunities outside agriculture and an anonymous urban environment where they can free themselves from traditional relations.

I would like to acknowledge my gratitude towards several organizations and individuals for their help and encouragement. A fellowship from the National Institute of Community Development, Hyderabad, (previously at Mussoorie), India enabled me to prepare the research design and collect the data for this study. I am most grateful to my respondents for their time and patience. The University of Wisconsin Research Committee and The Department of Sociology, Cornell University financed the computer time. Small grants from the Faculty Grants Committee and Asian Studies program at the University of Pittsburgh helped meet some of the research expenses. A N.I.H. Post-doctoral Fellowship during 197071 enabled me to devote some of my time in the preparation of this monograph, which originally was presented in 1970 (in a different version) as a Ph.D Thesis at the University of Wisconsin.

Professors Joseph W. Elder, Archibald O. Haller, H. Kent Geiger and William H. Sewell at the University of Wisconsin, Madison were constant sources of intellectual stimulation and helped me in various ways in the preparation of my dissertation. I am grateful for their patience and understanding during critical times. The criticisms of Professors Gerhard Lenski, Leonard Reissman and Harold Gould were very helpful and I am thankful to them. Among my colleagues, Rainer Baum and Norman Hummon read the manuscript, and their comments and criticisms proved valuable. I am thankful to them.

Professor Thomas Lasswell, editor of The Stratification Series in which this monograph is published, read the manuscript and made valuable suggestions for its reorganization. Mrs. Eva Greenberg of The Social Systems Training Program, Department of Sociology, Cornell University helped in data analysis and preparation of tables. Their help is most appreciated.

Vijai P. Singh

Pittsburgh, Pa.

The major theoretical concern behind this research is to study the changes in a stratification system over time and to identify the important societal factors that have influenced the process. Generally, sociologists have paid much attention to the consequences of different stratification systems. Less attention has been given to internal social structural factors and radical institutional and legislative changes that may shape the profile of the stratification system. We will, therefore, examine in this volume how institutionalized inequalities are created and distributed, particularly in India.

Most of the empirical research on social stratification has been concentrated on North America and certain Western European countries. Many of the findings and implications may not be applicable to other societies. In the study of stratification, cultural and political differences between societies should be taken into consideration. Many societies are not as technologically and economically developed as the Western societies, so we may expect to find different structural conditions for stratification. In some non-Western societies internal heterogeneity is so pronounced that dual stratification may coexist.

Today, many students of social stratification postulate that occupation is the most important index of social stratification in highly industrialized societies and therefore, the study of occupational structure is crucial to understanding social stratification. The implication is, of course, that occupational status signifies or is the source of differential economic status, power and prestige. It has been reported occasionally that cultural differences and differences in the level of economic development between societies do not produce similarity in the evaluation of occupations. This debate is not settled yet, and more data are needed from within such societies before a definite position can be established.

There is some evidence which suggests that occupational status as a prestige hierarchy may not be the most important source of differences in economic or political power. Lenski has shown that in less industrialized societies, personal ability, personal characteristics, inheritance, personal relations with the political head, ethnic background, and religious affiliations are important factors which determine ones access to power and privilege. As a society develops technologically, social, economic and political institutions emerge, which are associated with the loss of significance of hereditary statuses. It is only after a society has reached a mature industrial stage that occupational status becomes a major source of power and privilege. It may be stated then, that societies show a wide range of variations in their stratification systems and that our knowledge of stratification systems is based on too small a sample of societies. Serious attempts are yet to be made to examine systematically changes in stratification systems of many non-Western societies.