Interpretative Sociology

Max Weber is the main thinker in the interpretative sociology.  Weber is known for his anti-positivist approach.

Interpretation means to understand and same is the meaning of the word Verstehen which is a German Word which means "To Understand". 

Interpretative sociology (Verstehende Soziologie) is the study of society that concentrates on the meanings people associate to their social world.

Interpretative sociology strives to show that reality is constructed by people themselves in their daily lives.

Verstehen roughly translates to "meaningful understanding" or "putting yourself in the shoes of others to see things from their perspective." 

Interpretive sociology differs from positivist sociology in three ways:

1. Interpretive sociology deals with the meaning attached to behavior, unlike positivist sociology which focuses on action.
2. Interpretive sociology sees reality as being constructed by people, unlike positivist sociology which sees an objective reality "out there".
3. Interpretive sociology relies on qualitative data, unlike positivist sociology which tends to make use of quantitative data.

Family and Household

Functions of the Family:-

Nurturing of children.

Economic cooperation.

Provide child with models from whom they can learn gender appropriate roles.

Definition of the Family:-

A group composed of a woman and her dependent children, with at least one adult man joined through marriage or blood relationship.

In most societies, families constitute households or households are built around families.

Forms of Family:-

Conjugal Family: formed on the basis of marital ties

Consanguineal Family: consists of related women, their brothers, and the women's offspring's

Households:-

Basic residential units that implement :

Economic Production

Consumption

Inheritance 

Child Rearing

Shelter

Davis–Moore Theory

The Davis–Moore hypothesis, sometimes referred to as the Davis–Moore theory, is a central claim within the structural functionalist paradigm of sociological theory, and was advanced by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore in a paper published in 1945. The hypothesis is an attempt to explain social stratification. 

As a structural functionalist theory, it is also associated with Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton.

The hypothesis is an attempted explanation of social stratification, based on the idea of "functional necessity." 

Davis and Moore argue that the most difficult jobs in any society are the most necessary and require the highest rewards and compensation to sufficiently motivate individuals to fill them. 

Once the roles are filled, the division of labor functions properly, based on the notion of organic solidarity advanced by Emile Durkheim.

This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles. 

• The first problem is that they posit rewards as a guarantee of performance, when rewards are supposed to be based on merit in their argument. It is argued that if abilities were inherent, there would be no need of a reward system. 
• 
  
• Secondly, Davis and Moore do not clearly indicate why some positions should be worth more than others, other than the fact that they are remunerated more, claiming, for example, that teachers are equally, if not more, functionally necessary than athletes and movie stars, yet, they receive significantly lower incomes. 

These critics have suggested that structural inequality (inherited wealth, family power, etc.), is itself a cause of individual success or failure, rather than a consequence of it. 

Class analysts point out that it is not merely income that determines inequality but wealth, access to social networks, and cultural practices that put some individuals in better positions than others to succeed.

Davis and Moore argue like this:

• They claim that no society is un-stratified. So, inequality is universal.

• This universal nature of stratification must mean that inequality is not only unavoidable, but indeed necessary to the smooth working of society.

• Then Davis and Moore set out to explain how inequality benefits society. (They assume it is beneficial then try to explain how it must be beneficial.)

• They ask: Why are some positions in society higher than others? Why do the higher positions carry more status and rewards? The answer they come up with is this:

1. Societies are stratified because inequality fulfills an important need of all social systems.
2. Society must distribute its members among the various positions in society.
3. People have to be motivated to fill certain positions and perform their duties.
4. Filling the positions within a social structure is a basic need of any society. This is accomplished through the unequal distribution of rewards.

“Any society must distribute its individuals and induce them to perform the duties of their positions. It must solve the problem of motivation at two levels: to instill in the proper individuals the desire to occupy certain positions and, once in these positions the desire to perform the duties attached to them” (Davis 1948, pp. 366-367).

5. Not all positions are equally pleasant, equally important, or equal in terms of required talent and ability.

6. There must be rewards to provide inducements and those rewards must be distributed unequally to assure that all positions get filled. The inequality of rewards corresponds to what Davis and Moore call functional importance of the position. 

Davis and Moore state:

“Modern medicine, for example, is within the mental capacity of most individuals, but a medical education is so expensive and burdensome that virtually none would undertake it if the position of M.D. did not carry a reward commensurate with the sacrifice.”

7. The most important positions are rewarded the most--the least important are rewarded the least.

• On the issue of functional importance, Davis and Moore state: “two factors...determine the relative rank of different positions. In general those positions convey the best reward, and have the highest rank which (a) have the greatest importance for the society and (b) require the greatest training or talent.”

• This means that, as Davis and Moore say: “a position does not bring power and prestige because it draws a high income. Rather it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel is for one reason or another scarce.”

 • So that...

“Social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies insure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons. Hence, every society, no matter how simple or complex, must differentiate persons in terms of both prestige and esteem, and must therefore possess a certain amount of institutionalized inequality.”

• Ranking of positions occurs according to functional importance and the amount of training or talent associated with the position. High income, power, prestige of a particular position are due to functional importance or scarcity of trained personnel.

3. Summary of the Davis-Moore Thesis:

• Social positions have varying degrees of functional importance.
• Talented and trained individuals are scarce because acquisition of training and skills requires people to be sufficiently motivated to pursue them.
• Stratification, or unequal distribution of rewards ensures that the most talented and trained individuals will fulfill the social roles of greatest importance.

The basic tone of the Davis-Moore thesis, as Irving Zeitlin says, is that, “The rich and powerful and prestigious are at the top because they are the most talented and the best trained and also because they make the greatest contribution to society’s preservation.”

4. Criticism of the Davis-Moore Thesis: The Nature of Social Mobility:

a. Scarcity of rewards is not a “natural” scarcity but rather an artificial scarcity--especially within a system of private property in production--property is, for example, exclusionary rights.

b. Some rewards are not functionally determined at all, but rather must be understood within the context of wealth ownership and institution of inheritance.

• Is wealth ownership functionally important?

• What does the institution of inheritance imply about qualifications, talent, or skill associated with ownership and the power that ownership brings with it?

* Associated idea from Durkheim (See Russell, p. 110):

“One of the problems of modern societies, which Durkheim sought to remedy through state action, was the chaotic and inefficient ways in which labor forces were trained and rewarded. Inept progeny of rich tycoons took over companies while intelligent children of workers went uneducated. Modern societies allocated their collective labor forces inefficiently, wasting talented but poor people in humble positions and suffering from the inept sons of the privileged in powerful positions. To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities,educationally prepare them according to their potential--what later became known as tracking--and see that they ended up in jobs that paid accordingly.”

c. Control of access to training by powerful and privileged groups creates artificial  scarcity of talent.

d. Davis and Moore claimed that their theory was applicable to all forms of society. Critics of the Davis-Moore viewpoint argued that it did not make much sense in non-competitive societies--for example feudalism, where all positions are distributed not by merit but by birth. And, more importantly what about those aspects of a class society that do not operate like merit systems?

• The issue of ascribed vs. achieved status was brought up. The distribution of positions cannot be understood merely by achievement but achievement itself is conditioned by ascription of status.

• In other words, ascribed statuses condition access to opportunity structures. Weber’s concept of life chances  is relevant here. Opportunities for achievement are not distributed equally. Class itself can be though of as implying a set of life chances and obstacles to social mobility.

Melvin Tumin vs. Davis-Moore Thesis:

a. 1953--Melvin Tumin’s “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis” was published in the American Sociological Review.

b. Tumin’s criticism rested on this point:

• The functional importance of varying social positions has not been demonstrated, nor can such a demonstration be made. “Are engineers functionally more important to a factory than unskilled workers.” 

Here, planning vs. implementation are considered complementary functions of production. We must also consider the problem of deskilling and the control of workers (see Braverman--the detailed division of labor).

 c. Scarcity of talent is not an adequate explanation of stratification. There is in stratification systems artificial limits to the development of whatever potential skills there are in society. For example, wealth, education, professional associations, etc. ...these things assure not that the best and the brightest will be selected for powerful positions but that much of society’s potential talent will go un-utilized.

d. The universality of stratification does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or inevitable. Just because stratification is universal does not mean it is a vital aspect or system need of society. Stratification is not positively functionally for a society--it is dysfunctional.

Tumin states (see Levine, p. 108):

“Social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political power necessary to procure acceptance and dominance of an ideology which rationalizes the status quo, whatever it may be as “logical,” “natural,” and “morally right.” In this manner, social stratification systems function as essentially conservative influences in the society in which they are found.”

Value Free Sociology

Sociology as a value-free science:-

The subject matter of sociology is human behavior in society. All social behavior is guided by values. Thus the study of social behavior can never be value-free if value freedom is interpreted in the sense of absence of values because values of the society under investigation form a part of the social facts to be studied by sociology. 

Moreover social research is in itself a type of social behavior and is guided by the value of search for true knowledge. 

Max Weber says about value-free sociology means that the sociologist while carrying social research must confine called value relevance. 

Thus the values can operate at three levels:

At the level of philological interpretation. At the level of ethical interpretation in assigning value to an object of enquiry. At the level of rational interpretation in which the sociologists seeks the meaningful relationship between phenomena in terms of causal analysis. The point of value interpretation is to establish the value towards which an activity is directed. Sociologists should observe value neutrality while conducting social research. It means that he should exclude ideological or non -scientific assumption from research. He should not make evaluative judgment about empirical evidence.  Value judgment should be restricted to sociologists' area of technical competence. He should make his own values open and clear and refrain from advocating particular values.  Value neutrality enables the social scientists to fulfill the basic value of scientific enquiry that is search for true knowledge. Thus sociology being a science cherishes the goal of value neutrality.  According to Alvin Gouldner value-free principle did enhance the autonomy of sociology where it could steadily pursue basic problems rather than journalistic-ally react to passing events and allowed it more freedom to pursue questions uninteresting either to the respectable or to the rebellious.  It made sociology freer as Comte had wanted it to be -to pursue all its own theoretical implications. Value free principle did contribute to the intellectual growth and emancipation of the enterprise.Value-free doctrine enhanced freedom from moral compulsiveness; it permitted a partial escape from the parochial prescriptions of the sociologists' local or native culture. Effective internalization of the value-free principle has always encouraged at least a temporary suspension of the moralizing reflexes built into the sociologist by his own society. The value-free doctrine has a paradoxical potentiality; it might enable men to make better value judgments rather than none. It could encourage a habit of mind that might help men in discriminating between their punitive drives and their ethical sentiments. However in practice it has been extremely difficult to fulfill this goal of value neutrality. Values creep in various stages in sociological research.  According to Gunnar Myrdal total value neutrality is impossible. 'Chaos does not organize itself into cosmos. We need view points.' Thus in order to carry out social research viewpoints are needed which form the basis of hypothesis which enables the social scientists to collect empirical data. These view-points involve valuations and also while formulating the hypothesis. Thus a sociologist has to be value frank and should make the values which have got incorporated in the choice of the topic of the research of the formulation of hypothesis clear and explicit at the very outset in the research. The value-free doctrine is useful both to those who want to escape from the world and to those who want to escape into it. They think of sociology as a way of getting ahead in the world by providing them with neutral techniques that may be sold on the open market to any buyer. The belief that it is not the business of sociologist to make value judgments is taken by some to mean that the market on which they can vend their skills is unlimited. Some sociologists have had no hesitation about doing market research designed to sell more cigarettes although well aware of the implications of recent cancer research.  According to Gouldner the value-free doctrine from Weber's standpoint is an effort to compromise two of the deepest traditions of the western thought, reason and faith but that his arbitration seeks to safeguard the romantic residue in modern man. Like Freud, Weber never really believed in an enduring peace or in a final resolution of this conflict. What he did was to seek a truce through the segregation of the contenders by allowing each to dominate in different spheres of life.

Great and Little Traditions

The terms great and little traditions were coined by a sociologist named Robert Redfield in the twentieth century to describe the cultural practices of peasant societies.

He found that peasants observed rituals and customs that emanated from dominant social categories, including priests and rulers. These he classified as part of a great tradition. 

At the same time, peasants also followed local practices that did not necessarily correspond with those of the great tradition. These he included within the category of little tradition. 

He also noticed that both great and little traditions changed over time, through a process of interaction. While scholars accept the significance of these categories and processes, they are often uncomfortable with the hierarchy suggested by the terms great and little. 

• The use of quotation marks for “great” and “little” is one way of indicating this.

Dependency theory

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. 

It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system".

The premises of dependency theory are that:

1. Poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labour, a destination for obsolete technology, and markets for developed nations, without which the latter could not have the standard of living they enjoy.
2. Wealthy nations actively perpetuate a state of dependence by various means. This influence may be multifaceted, involving economics, media control, politics, banking and finance, education, culture, and sport.

The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. 

Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy.

Narrative analysis

Narrative analysis, like the name implies, centers around the study of stories or accounts – usually of individuals, but also of groups, societies, and cultures.

Narrative analysis or narrative methods are a product of what was termed the "narrative turn" in social science research, which has been described and analyzed as a response to the lack of human stories in traditional social science in the 1960’s. 

Early works delineating the historical foundations of narrative methods included works on life histories and oral narratives. The focus of these methods were life stories that described the personal experiences of poverty, inequality, sexism, and many other social and cultural experiences.

Approaches to narrative analysis are four different analytic approaches: 

• Thematic Analysis, 
• Structural Analysis, 
• Dialogic/performance analysis, and 
• Visual Analysis

1. Thematic analysis relies on categorizing accounts or aspects of accounts that are being told.
2. Structural analysis looks into the ways in which the narratives are structured and what the language in the stories does both on the textual as well as the cultural level. 
3. Dialogic/performance analysis focuses on the difficulty in analyzing accounts that are co-constructed or performed. 
4. Lastly, visual analysis focuses on the analysis of all visual media including art, video, and digital media.

Researchers can collect data for narrative analysis using any means that involves capturing an account. Common means are through video, interview, and participant observation though none of these means are mutually exclusive.

Methodological dualism

Methodological dualism is an epistemological position which holds that it is necessary, based on our current levels of knowledge and understanding, to utilize a different methodology in our attempts to analyze the actions of human beings than the methodology used in the physical sciences (i.e. physics, biology etc...) to study external events.

This position is based on the presupposition that humans differ fundamentally from other objects in the external world in that humans act, or in other words use means to achieve ends, while other objects in nature, such as stones, planets, molecules and atoms do not.

Furthermore, we do not at present know how external events affect an individual's "thoughts, ideas, and judgements of value" and this ignorance forces us to adopt a dualistic approach to the two classes of phenomena.

This view was emphasized by Ludwig von Mises and formed the central basis of his epistemology. 

Methodological dualism, especially in Mises's case, was a reaction to the notion held by groups such as the logical positivists that the study of human action, and as such economics, should utilize the same experimental scientific method as the physical sciences, a view that has been referred to by Mises, Friedrich Hayek and others as scientism. 

The alternative methodology that Mises developed and utilized for his study of human action was praxeology, which formed the basis for his work in economics. Praxeology differs from the mainstream neoclassical approach to economics, in that the mainstream approach utilizes the same overall methodology as the physical sciences in an attempt to develop economic theories and predict future economic.

Social Class

When sociologists talk of social class, they refer to a group of individuals who occupy a similar position in the economic system of production.

• Upper Class – Elite
• Upper Middle Class
• Lower Middle Class
• Working Class
• Poor

There are two classical sociologists who are most important in the discussions about class – Karl Marx and Max Weber.

Karl Marx:

Assertion that there were two great classes – 

• the owners of the means of production (capitalists) and 
• the workers

The only thing that the workers owned was their ability to work, what Marx called “labor power.” Because owners (capitalists) paid wages to workers and could for the most part determine that wage, owners had power over workers. Marx felt that the lack of power of workers was the source of exploitation and the basis of class conflict.  

• Marx argued that owners and workers developed ideas, understandings about their positions and this Marx called class consciousness. 
• When owners convinced workers that their situations were compatible – Marx called this false consciousness.

Although Marx talked mainly about the two great classes – owners and workers – he was aware as well of a third category which he called petit bourgeoisie – literally little middle class and these were owners of own small businesses.  Finding a location for this group was difficult because they lacked the power if the owners and at the same time had control over their work and wages unlike the workers. Moreover, according to Marx, sometimes they identified with the owners and sometimes with the workers.

Max Weber:  

The other sociologist was Max Weber. He argued that class referred to economic interests. It was a quantifiable economic position – groups that share a common set of life-chances and circumstances. 

• But Weber also talked about status, prestige – important part was awareness of its value. 
• Weber also talked about party – essentially putting the class interests into action.

Annihilation of Caste: B R Ambedkar views

In The Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar, probably for the first time, raised many profound questions with respect to caste. 

First, he rejected the defence of caste on the basis of division of labour and argued that it was not merely a division of labour but a division of labourers. The former was voluntary and depended upon one's choice and aptitude and, therefore, rewarded efficiency. The latter was involuntary, forced, killed initiative and resulted in job aversion and inefficiency. 

He argued that caste could not be defended on the basis of purity of blood, though pollution is a hallmark of the caste system.

According to Ambedkar, caste destroyed the concept of ethics and morality. To quote him: “The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound.

He quoted from D.R. Bhandarkar's paper “Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population” that “there is hardly any class or caste in India which has not a foreign strain in it, (and that) there is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior classes – the Rajputs and the Marathas – but also among the Brahmins who are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements.” Ambedkar thus argued that caste had no scientific basis. He painfully maintained that Hindu society was a collection of castes, fixed in watertight compartments with graded hierarchy that made an associated corporate life virtually impossible.

He suggested inter-caste marriage as the remedy to destroy caste.

Ambedkar was convinced that political empowerment was key to the socio-economic development of the untouchables.

Cultural pluralism:-

It is a concept that says that individual ethnic groups have a right to exist on their own terms within the larger society while retaining their unique cultural heritages.

Significance:- 

As a concept cultural pluralism is an alternative to the “melting pot” view that immigrants should assimilate to dominant culture by abandoning their own cultures, languages, and other traditions. Cultural pluralism is often confused with Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism lacks the requirement of a dominant culture.

Critiques of Cultural Pluralism:-

Cultural pluralism has been attacked for justifying cultural separatism—that is, a transformation to a “nation of nations” similar to what is found in Switzerland or a segregated America of ethnically pure residential enclaves. 

A second critique is that cultural pluralists assume that because ethnic traditions are static they suppress individuality. 

Third, cultural pluralists are attacked for a belief that ethnic identity is primary and thus more powerful than other identities. 

Anti-Critic:-

Cultural pluralists respond that cultural pluralism thrives in an integrated, not a segregated, society. They accept cultures as internally dynamic, changing and adapting over time with plenty of room for diversity inside each culture. Cultural attachments are seen as important but not exclusive.

Sociology of Gender

The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself/herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively.

In sociology Gender is attached with multiple sociological concepts. Some of them are given below:-

• Gender and Socialization
• Gender and the Division of Labour 
• Gender and Violence
• Gender and Globalisation 

Gender and Socialization:-

By the time children reach the age of 2, many they acquire a firm sense of themselves as male or female, a gender identity that remains throughout life. In addition, at pre-school stage, children develop a firm awareness of gender stereotypes, insisting that certain activities or items of clothing are not for girls and others not for boys. Yet Gender Identity does not automatically follow from biological sex.

Gender and the Division of Labour:-

Before industrialization, economic activity, which centred around agricultural work, crafts and so on, was organized by households. Household members, whether male or female, young or old, contributed to the family's livelihood. Although women might do some types of work and men others, depending on region and class, the distinction between men as breadwinners and women as housewives didn't characterized pre-industrial divisions of labour.

Industrialization shifted much productive activity to factories, shops and offices. This separation of work from home signalled a profound change in gender relations and gender discourse. The home came to be understood not as the site of a family enterprise, but as a refuge from the world of work. Women were defined as the keepers of the home, as it was seen as their nature to create harmony and virtue rather than services and goods.

Gender and Violence:-

social arenas in which violence commonly takes place

(1) in the family—including domestic violence,infanticide, and traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, foot binding, and bride burning; 

(2) in the community—including rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and commercialized violence such as sexual slavery, labor exploitation, female migrant workers; and 

(3) by the State—including violence against women in detention, and in situations of armed conflict such as systematic war rape.

In order to address and end gendered violence, solutions must address both the root causes and interpersonal manifestations of gender roles and power relations in order to ensure a balance of power at all levels of society.

Gender and Globalisation:-

Globalization refers to the increasingly global relationships of culture, people and economic activity. Globalization impacts female equality on a large and international scale, both negatively and positively. With continuous changes in international relations, the perception of feminism in Western and Non western societies is frequently revised.

Structural Functionalism (M N Srinivas)

Structural-Functional  approach in the study of society emerged from the writings of early thinkers like August Comte, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim during the later part of 19th century and became a predominant trend in sociology.

Functional approach to the study of phenomena emerged initially in biological sciences and later on adopted in other  sciences and social sciences.  

The key points of the functionalist perspective may be summarized by a comparison drawn from biology. A biologist carries  out the study of an organism, say human body, by analysing various parts, such as brain, lungs, heart and liver. However if each part is examined in isolation, it will not reveal the entire working and maintenance of the part unless studied in relation to other parts comprising the whole organism. Functionalism as an approach adopts a similar view. 

"Functional approach to the study of society views society in terms of its constituent parts  and their relationship with each other in order to maintain the society as a whole". 

Radcliffe-Brown defines  function of any social institution in terms of the contribution it makes to the maintenance of the whole society

Functionalism begins with the observation that behaviour in society is structured. Relationships between the members of society are organized in terms of rules or norms and hence patterned and recurrent. 

Values provide general guidelines for behaviour. The structure of the society may be seen as the sum total of normative behaviour - sum total of social relationships, which are governed by norms.

According to Radcliffe -Brown, "social structure refers to person to person relationship institutionally defined". 

The main parts of society, its institutions such as the family, the economy, the educational and political systems are major aspects of social structure. These parts of the social structure have their contribution to make for the maintenance and survival of the society. In other words, each part of social structure has a specific function to perform towards maintenance of the society. 

From a functional perspective, society is regarded as a system. A system is an entity made up of interrelated parts which are interdependent. Changes in the  functioning of any part will in some way,  affect every other part and the system as  a  whole. These parts are integrated and collectively contribute towards the maintenance of the order and stability of the system. 

Functionalists believe in consensus, order  and stability of the system. Unlike the evolutionists, the functionalists search for the origin of institutions in terms of the essential functions they perform.

M N Srinivas:-

He is mostly known for his work on caste and caste system, social stratification and Sanskritization in southern India. He is also famous for his ideas on the concept of “Dominant Caste”.

According to Srinivas there are basically two ways of understanding our society. Those are: 

1. Book view and
2. Field view. 

Book view is to understand the society from the books and literature available and is otherwise known as Indological approach. 

But Srinivas has emphasized more on field view, where understanding society from field work is considered as important. So he made an intensive study on the Coorgs.

The various scholarly writings of Srinivas include:

A.  Social change in Modern India (1966)

B.  Religion and Society among Coorgs of South India(1952)

C.  Caste in Modern India and Other Essays(1966)

D.  The Dominant Caste and Other Essays (1987)

E.  India’s Villages (1955)

F.  India: Social Structure (1980)

Sanskritization and Srinivas:-

Srinivas coined the term Sanskritization to reflect the social mobility present in Indian Society. 

According to M.N. Srinivas “Sanskritization is a process by which a “low” Hindu caste, or tribal or other group, changes its customs, ritual, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high, and frequently, a “twice” born caste. It is followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than traditionally concealed to the claimant caste by the local community. Such claims are made over a period of time, sometimes  a generation or two before they are conceded.” 

In his study of Mysore Village, Srinivas finds that at some time or the other, every caste tries to change its rank in the hierarchy by giving up its attributes and trying to adopt those of castes above them. 

This process of attempting to change one’s rank by giving up attributes that define a caste as low and adopting attributes that are indicative of higher status is called ‘Sanskritization’. 

This process essentially involves a change in one’s dietary habits from non-  vegetarianism to vegetarianism, and  change in one’s occupation habits from unclean to clean occupation. 

The attributes of a caste become the basis of interaction between castes.

Dominant Caste and Srinivas:-

The concept of dominant caste has been used for the first item in sociological literature by an eminent Indian Sociologist M.N. Srinivas in his essay Social System of a Mysore Village, which was written after his study of village Rampura. The concept occupies a key position in the process of ‘Sanskritisation’. 

The term dominant caste is used to  refer to a caste which “wields economic or political power and occupies a fairly high position in the hierarchy.” These castes are accorded high status and position in all the fields of social life. The people of other lower castes look at them as their ‘reference group’ and try to imitate their behaviour, ritual pattern, custom and ideology. In this way, the dominant caste of a particular locality plays an important role in the ‘process of cultural transmission’ in that area. The members of a dominant caste have an upper hand in all the affairs of the locality and enjoy many special opportunities as well as privileges. 

Srinivas has defined the following six major characteristics of Dominant caste:-

i) Land Ownership:

Land is the most precious possession in rural area since it is the principal source of income. Uneven distribution of locally available cultivable field is a regular phenomenon of Indian Society. A vast area of land is concentrated in the hands of rich minority.  Generally the big landowners come  from higher castes. These land owners employ the people of other castes as their laborers. They also give land on rent to the people. As a result, the entire population of the locality remains obliged to the few land owners of a particular caste. These few  landlords of a caste exercise considerable amount of power over all other castes and become the dominant caste of that locality. Srinivas cites the examples of landowning jats treating Brahmins as their servants in Punjab. Thakur landlords  also deny  cooked food from all Brahmins accept their gurus and religious teachers.

ii) Numerical Strength:

The numerical strength of a caste also contributes towards its dominance. The more the number the greater the power. In many areas, the Kshyatriyas due to their large population are able to exercise their control and power even over the few rich Brahmins of a locality and are able to dominate the socio-political situation. 

iii) High place in local hierarchy:

Indian Society has been stratified into  various groups on the basis of caste system organised 

according to the beliefs and ideas of purity and pollution. In every locality certain caste is accorded high status owing to its ritual purity. They always enjoy social superiority to all other castes in every aspects of social life. All the factors described above contributed towards the dominance of a caste in traditional society. With the onset of modernization and change in the attitude and belief of people the following new factors have come up overshadowing the old ones, 

iv) Education: 

The caste, member of which are highly educated, is naturally looked up by the members of others castes. Due to their high education, they win the morale of others. The illiterate people have to take their help in many occasions owing  to the complexities of modern social life. The educated people, due to their  adequate  information and knowledge about various developmental activities, plans and programmes, are also in a better position to utilise them which aids to their prosperity making them dominant in a particular area.

v) Job in administration and urban sources of income:

The caste, the majority members of which is in government bureaucracy or has sound economic strength, always finds itself in an advantageous position. Its members hold legal and administrative powers by virtue of their being government officials. They help their other caste fellows to have different sources of urban income like supplying of food grains to urban dwellers, doing various types of business.  In this way they strengthen their economic position and become comparatively rich then, the members of caste who are engaged only in agricultural activities. All these aid to the higher position of that caste in a locality and make it dominant.

vi) Political involvement:

The dominant place of politics in contemporary Indian Society can hardly be undermined. The caste being more involved in political affairs of the state or locality, automatically raises its position and exercises control in all fields of social life. Till now we have been emphasizing on the point that a caste becomes dominant in a locality due to its attributes as discussed above. But dominance is no longer a purely local phenomenon. The caste may or may not have attributes of dominance in a particular locality or village; nevertheless  it can contribute to be a dominant caste, if the same caste occupies a dominant position in that wider region. In such a case, the network or relationship and friendship ties of the members of locally unimportant caste with  the dominant relatives of that region, makes them dominant.

Religion, Society and Srinivas:-

Srinivas’ work  Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India  (1952) led him to formulate the concept of Brahminization to represent the process of the imitation of life-ways and ritual practices of Brahmins by the lower-caste Hindus. 

The concept was used as an explanatory device to interpret changes observed in the ritual practices and life-ways of the lower castes through intensive and careful field study. The notion of Brahminization, however, had implicit possibilities of further abstraction into a higher level concept, ‘Sanskritization". 

In  Religion and Society, Srinivas was concerned with the spread of Hinduism. He talked about “Sanskritic Hinduism’ and its values. Related to this was the notion of ‘sanskritization’ which Srinivas employed “to describe the process of the penetration of sanskritic values into the remote parts in India. Imitation of the way of life of the topmost, twice-born castes was said to be the principle mechanism by which the lower castes sought to raise their own social status”. 

Critics of Srinivas:-

• Although Srinivas has talked about the economic and technological development, he has not focused of the lower segment of society.
• His ideas on Sanskritization and Dominant caste has made him closer to Hindutva ideology of cultural nationalism.
• The two processes of social change, Sanskritization and Westernization are regarded as “limited processes in modern India and it is not possible to understand one without reference to the other.”