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

Authors Avatar

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

Social hierarchies are arguably inevitable in any civilisation. A hierarchy can be seen as a “multi-tiered” or “pyramid-like” structure, in which the centralisation of power can be located at its peak. All other groups below this pinnacle are subordinates. Comparing caste and class with one another in relation to the concept of social hierarchy is complex. The caste system is an expression of social stratification in the Indian sub-continent, which is characterised by social classes. Within these classes exist many endogamous, hereditary groups which are often referred to as jatis (castes) (from the BBC, religion and ethics - Hinduism). The system itself, however, is based on varnas, which represent the class structure and relate to one’s profession. There a four primary varnas. The Brahmins, who dominate the top of class structure, hold jobs as priests, teachers and scholars. The Kshatriyas (kings and warriors), the Vaishyas (traders, merchants) and Shudras (agriculturalists and some artisan groups) make up the remaining varnas. The “untouchables” (now known as Dalits), who could be seen as the western equivalent of the right-wing term, “underclass” when contextualised to social class, as they are social outcastes and lack (Sociology: Themes and Perspectives A-Level student handbook). “Untouchable” refers to the ritual polluting capacity they have to make higher castes “impure” through sight and touch. They are considered to be social outcasts and have no place within the caste system. Dumont (1966) uses the concepts of “purity” and “pollution” to illustrate the differences in status between the Brahmins and the Dailts.

The ways in which caste can be seen as different from class as a form of social hierarchy will be assessed in terms of the meanings of both concepts, and how they differ from each other in terms of ascribed and achieved statuses using Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital. This refers to the culture that coincides with the norms and values of the dominant class in society. I will also elaborate on the heavy influence of religion imposed on caste with references to key thinkers such as Dirks. The validity of both class and caste as a source of identity will also be discussed and consequently the legitimacy of both concepts snd the role they play as a social hierarchy, contrasting them both with each other and evaluating their importance both in historical and present times. My argument will also include how both class and class in its hierarchical form can act as a medium of control.

One way in which caste differs from class as a form of social hierarchy is that caste is an ascribed status, i.e. fixed at birth, whereas class is arguably achieved according to some sociologists through meritocracy. Meritocracy is a term enjoyed by functionalists which implies that an individual in society is able to determine their own social position through his or her own talents and competencies rather than on class or wealth. Firstly, the caste system is a complex one to analyse in terms of comparing it to the western social class system. In reference to a village known as Bispara, F.G Bailey (1960) conducted fieldwork on the politics of “caste-climbing”, where he investigated methods of improving one’s caste situation. These included changing one’s caste membership, endeavouring to better one’s own caste relative rank or abandoning the caste system altogether. These options indeed go against the notion of caste being fixed. People born into castes abide by customs and meanings attached to it; there is a sense of obligation which is still strong, particularly in rural areas (Beteille, 2002) which suggests that failing to acknowledge one’s caste as indefinite is scarce. However, in urban areas it is common for members of lower castes to convert to other religions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, to escape the negative connotations attached to their caste membership. This is because in cities it is easier to escape the prejudices of small-town politics. Along with the element of postmodernity, I think it is more acceptable to ‘pick and mix’ one’s identity as individualism is tolerable (Sociology: Themes and Perspectives A-Level student handbook). On the other hand, conversion to other religions as a means of escaping low-caste status leads to another perplexity of caste also existing in non-Hindu societies (Eriksen, 2001:143).

Join now!

In relation to social class, one’s status is subject to many factors such as family background, occupation and wealth, the last two of which can be attained according to the concept of meritocracy. This shows a very simple yet major difference between caste and class as form of social hierarchy, as it could be suggested that class can be changed by investing one’s efforts which can be demonstrated through institutions such as education, whereas caste cannot. However, when considering a well-off but ritually impure individual in Indian society (although admittedly this is rare; there is likely to be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay