In what ways does caste differ from class as a form of social hierarchy?

Authors Avatar

                                                                                                                                                                         Harry Fraser

In what ways does caste differ from class as a form of social hierarchy?

This essay intends to explore the ideas of what ‘caste’ and ‘class’ are, and the role each of them has in constructing and maintaining societies.

The area of study is one of such importance and interest because the two forms of hierarchy have come to epitomise the contrasting views held about how societies in different parts of the world function; class being generalised to be associated with Western societies, and caste specifically being associated with India – indeed, caste has become “a central symbol for India” (Dirks 2001: 3).

While there are clear fundamental differences between the two, there are cases where the boundaries may be less clear, the greatest example of this in practice being how the two forms of hierarchy interact in modern India.

The essay will initially discuss the explicit ways in which class differs from caste seen in its traditional form, in order to draw a clear line between the two, before moving on to discuss how contemporary India manages to accommodate both forms of hierarchy, emphasising the complications that arise when two forms of social order battle for power.

We will begin by making clear the most fundamental, underlying difference between the two forms of hierarchy, a difference of immense importance as it has always been the initial way of identifying the two.

 Caste has always been directly linked with the Hindu religion and exists in the form of an ancient hierarchy based on the notions of purity and pollution. In its simplest form, known as Varna, the caste system is seen to exist of four groups, the purest being the Brahmin, followed by the Kshatriya, the Vaishya and the Sudra.

A fifth group, colonially known as the Untouchables, fall outside the rank. The hierarchy consists of a number of complex rituals related to purity that stem from the Brahmin, the priestly caste.

Class is seen to have no such religious basis. Due to its lack of such a specific root, it has been harder to define specifically, however possibly the most influential theory of class was that of Karl Marx, who distinguished between those who had ‘capital’ – i.e; a means of production, and those who did not, thus had to work for those with capital (Jayaraman 1981: 20). Such an idea is the basis of the modern ideas of upper, middle and lower class. In Caste and Class, Jayaraman distinguishes between these ideas of Marx and those of Max Weber, who believed “people are ranked according to the amount of ‘esteem’ or ‘prestige’ they possess in society.” (1981: 20).

While both views are expressed on different grounds, they seem to be very interlinked, the presumption being that those with this ‘prestige’ will be those in control of some form of capital – ensuring a high ranked position from both perspectives.

It is important to emphasise here that these descriptions of the basis of both systems are only brief do not intend to give a detailed understanding of their underlying workings – they simply intend to explain the primary distinctions between the two.

Join now!

We will now move from these more general distinctions between class and caste to some more specific examples that highlight some of the different practices of the two systems, starting with one of the most well known examples, the practice of endogamy.

The typical view is that endogamy plays a huge role in the caste system, while playing no part in the caste system. While the former point will be shown to indeed be the case, the accuracy of the latter will be drawn into question.

The importance of caste endogamy stems from implications of caste separation, which in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay