Showing papers in "Contributions to Indian Sociology in 1971"
TL;DR: The present symposium is perhaps representative of the diversity of views found in the field, not of the most articulate and influential type of opposition to Homo Hierarchicus (henceforth H.H.) as found within a considerable body of reviews and review articles.
Abstract: his own opinion and the speciality as a whole to develop on each point whatever consensus it is capable of. Moreover, the present symposium is perhaps representative of the diversity of views found in the field, not of the most articulate and influential type of opposition to Homo Hierarchicus (henceforth H.H.) as found within a considerable body of reviews and review articles. In order to honour
34 citations
TL;DR: The relevance of Kautilya for 2oth century ethnography is quite clear in this article, where the authors explicitly draw attention to the fact that their own monograph on a South-Indian subcaste happens to have stressed a situation exactly similar to that given in the Arthashashtra.
Abstract: mont’s long discussions of the role of kingship in caste ideology? Kautilya’s King was surely, like Machiavelli’s Prince, an idea rather than a fact? But Dumont often writes as if he thought otherwise. On the other hand his view of the relevance of Kautilya for 2oth century ethnography is quite clear. In one of his papers he explicitly draws attention to the fact that &dquo;my own monograph on a South-Indian subcaste happens to have stressed a situation exactly similar to that given in the Arthashashtra. That cannot be attributed
32 citations
TL;DR: Dumont as discussed by the authors is a scholar of international renown who is equally at home in the domains of sociology, social anthropology, and Indology, and his credentials as an Indianist are of an exceptionally high order.
Abstract: Louis Dumont’s credentials as an Indianist are of an exceptionally high order. He is a scholar of international renown who is equally at home in the domains of sociology, social anthropology, and Indology. The subjects on which he has written have an impressive range and include Hinduism, caste, kinship, kingship in ancient India, and social-political movements in modern India. His recent magnum opus, Homo Hierarchicus,l is an unusual work in its concep-
26 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a return to Panini as a model of comparative structural analysis is recommended, instead of abstracting for study a particular matrix of relational oppositions, Dumont understood structural analysis to mean the construction of a simple series of selected binary oppositions.
Abstract: encompassing in Hinduism, and the non-sacred is almost non-existent; (3) the opposition of the pure and the impure is fundamental and central to the caste system; and (4) hierarchy and separation are the twc basic aspects of the opposition of the pure and the impure, and hence of the cas :e system. We have argued that none of these propositions is properly established, and the whole theory is insufficiently supported by the relevant Sanskritic literature and ethnographic data. Above all, instead of abstracting for study a particular matrix of relational oppositions, Dumont has understood structural analysis. to mean the construction of a simple series of selected binary oppositions. If modern French methods of cultural and linguistic analysis have failed to ins :)ire him, we unhesitatingly recommend a return to Panini as a model of comparative structural analysis.
10 citations
TL;DR: A forthright premise such as the above deserves only the most serious attention of the South Asian social anthropologist as discussed by the authors, who is sure the book will generate some fresh thinking on a topic that has become synonymous with Indian civilization in the Westerner's mind.
Abstract: as a spatial-temporal category), but most often with the explicit concept of hierarchy as he enunciates it. For example: &dquo;... so far as marriage is concerned, separation was implied by and encompassed in hierarchy, and did not constitute a distinct fundamental principle&dquo; (130; for some other examples, see 32, 43 and 59)The foregoing discussion assumes that the reader accepts Dumont’s conception of hierarchy. He defines hierarchy as &dquo;the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the whole&dquo; (65-66; Dumont’s italics), by underscoring the religious (pure-impure), the collective (his HOMO MAJOR), and the ideal. Then he assiduously separates status from power and relegates the latter to a secondary role of a minimal consequence. Those who do not understand these basic axioms of his evidently do not understand the &dquo;true&dquo; nature of Indian hierarchy (e.g., see 31). A forthright premise (or conclusion) such as the above deserves only the most serious attention of the South Asian social anthropologist. But the point to keep in mind is that the axioms that the author may tend to accept as &dquo;proven&dquo; under his scheme need to be continuously tested against new data. But all this is with an eye for future work, and it does not minimize, in my opinion, any of the author’s originality and brilliance that is so plenitudinous in Homo Hierarchicus. I am sure the book will generate some fresh thinking on a topic that has become synonymous with Indian civilization in the Westerner’s mind. Even more universally significant, I am sure, is the invention of the analytical type of Homo hierarchicus. The latter may help guide research in several new directions within Indian civilization.
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors address the problem of whether the family in India has shown signs of going the same way, structurally speaking, as it is alleged to have went in the West.
Abstract: domestic organization. Mostly these have dealt with the &dquo;classic&dquo; problem of whether the family in India has shown signs of going the same way, structurally speaking, as it is alleged to have gone in the West. That is, has the so-called extended family been giving way to the neolocal nuclear structure that is supposedly more compatible with the functional requirements of a rationalized, bureaucratized, industrialized, urbanized society? However, I do not propose in this paper to address myself directly to this
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose that Professor Dumont's stress on complementarity be complemented by the viewpoint of insoluble contradiction, which is a view of the world as a realm of ultimate values.
Abstract: The contradictory consequence is, that society has to understand and legitimize itself in terms of a renunciatory idiom that negates society’s very basis. The unity of Indian civilization rests on the acceptance of this renunciatory idiom. In this restricted sense it may be said that the realm of ultimate values &dquo;encompasses&dquo; society. But the cement that keeps the whole together is not complementarity-for it is complementarity itself that has to be linked up with its very negation-but contradiction. I therefore propose that Professor Dumont’s stress on complementarity be &dquo;complemented&dquo; by the viewpoint of insoluble contradiction.
5 citations
TL;DR: The theory of the political effects of social mobility in a generalized form can briefly be stated as follows: a socially mobile person moves from one status ( status of origin) to another (status of destination) since he may not move on all statuses simultaneously and in the same degree as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: far-reaching consequences on the political attitudes and behaviour of individuals and on the legitimacy and stability of the political system. While the number of empirical studies of the relationship between social mobility and status discrepancy on the one hand, and political characteristics of individuals and societies on the other, has increased a great deal in recent years, most studies have asked only one type of question: What are the political consequences of social mobility? The existing theories and empirical studies do not deal with the relationship between social mobility and politics, but, in fact examine only the political effects of social mobility at the individual or larger system levels. The theory of the political effects of social mobility in a generalized form can briefly be stated as follows: A socially mobile person moves from one status (status of origin) to another (status of destination). The mobility of the individual creates certain discontinuities and discrepancies in his over-all status profile, since he may not move on all statuses simultaneously and in the same degree. He is a &dquo;new arrival&dquo; with regard to the status of destination; at the same time he may not be able to disassociate himself socially and psychologically from the status of his origin. This might result in social problems of acceptance
4 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the search for new nodes to mobilize sociological concerns (e.g., Mukherjee 1970, Joshi 1971) in the early nineties.
Abstract: If work on the villages was the central tendency for sociology in India during the t95o’s and if the ig6o’s recorded a very considerable (though rather unconsidered) diversification in the sociologists’ interests, the early i9~o’s are witnessing a mildly vigorous search for new nodes to mobilize sociological concerns (e.g. Mukherjee 1970, Joshi 1971). This essay is part of this search. I focus
4 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a closer look at manifestations of social stratification in Indian tribal societies widen our understanding of the peripheral aspects of the caste system, and the authors suggest that these examples of stratified tribal societies lacking an ideology focussed on the opposition between pure and impure in any way affect Dumont's interpretation of the basic principles of Hindu society.
Abstract: privileged position of the upper class with an innate quality of purity, nor do they ascribe impurity to all the individual members of the lower caste (which comprises free men as well as slaves) but only to persons engaging in magically dangerous tasks such as the castrition of pigs. I do not suggest that these examples of stratified tribal societies lacking an ideology focussed on the opposition between pure and impure in any way affect Dumont’s interpretation of the basic principles of Hindu society. Nevertheless, a closer look at manifestations of social stratification in Indian tribal societies widen our understanding of biome of the peripheral aspects of the caste system. After all Dumont has devoted considerable space to the discussion of caste-like phenomena among Muslims, Lingayats and Christians, and the exclusion of close on 30 million ttibals from any detailed consideration is hardly justified, particularly in view of Dumont’s earlier thesis that the tribes represent ethnic groups split off Torn the main body of Indian society. More searching attention to the proble:n of the incorporation of tribal groups within the framework of caste society would certainly have corrected the already quoted view (see 193) that ethnic groups each enter the caste system only either on the level of Untouchables or on the level of dominance based
3 citations
TL;DR: Hom? Hierarchicus as mentioned in this paper is a book with great penetration, lucidity and charm, though Dumont never hesitates to attack viewpoints he disapproves of, and carries the weight of a formidable scholarship lightly and with grace.
Abstract: Hom? Hierarchicus is written with great penetration, lucidity and charm, though Dumont never hesitates to attack viewpoints he disapproves of. He carries the weight of a formidable scholarship lightly and with grace. The book has already established itself as an important and controversial work. It has received rich praise (see, e.g., Yalman 1969) but has also been severely criticized (see, e.g., Marriott 1969). It is a book that just cannot be simply brushed aside. The present review symposium is offered as a contribution to the con-
TL;DR: In this article, Dumont shows that the impurity of the untouchable is conceptually inseparable from the purity of the Brahmin, and that untouchability will not truly disappear until the purity is itself radically devalued.
Abstract: accordingly? (3) Is the socio-economic system able to fulfil his new expectations ? Dumont shows that the impurity of the Untouchable is conceptually inseparable from the purity of the Brahmin so that untouchability will not truly disappear until the purity of the Brahmin is itself radically devalued. Generalizing from this statement about the two extreme groups on the hierarchical system as a whole, it is clear that further development along the official lines is both a question of raising expectations of the traditionally low and the ability to make the traditionally high status-groups accept relative deprivation. Having read Dumont’s careful analysis I am especially pessimistic with regard to the second condition.