Etymologically speaking, society is an association of people bound by neighborhood or common interests.

Such
collaborations require some kind of rules of interaction so as to avoid confusion and anarchy. Such rules usually lead to
classification of the citizens of on basis of a favored pattern of distribution. Two of the most prominent systems of
classification seen in our society are the class and caste system. Each of these systems comes with their own set of
challenges. While it is difficult to question the concept of class, caste or even social standings without experiencing the
society first hand, it is however possible to interpret the reasons and factors behind the stratification that can be found in
our societies. Borrowing the Indian perspective of caste-class relationships, this essays attempts to accomplish the same
by analyzing and categorizing the need and value of caste and class systems and how the resulting inequalities may be
justified.
The concept of caste is inherently difficult to be put into words. It requires the inclusion of a myriad of variables such as
family, class, religion, culture, occupation, status in the society etc. It could be defined as a collection of families or
groups of families bearing a common name; claiming the common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine;
professing to follow the same hereditary calling; and regarded by those who are competent to give an opinion as
forming a single homogenous community(Hutton, 1963). On the other hand it can also be defined as a subdivision of a
superior or inferior rank of social groups as compared the other subdivisions (Velassery, 2005). Caste system can be
thought to affect four major areas of a person's life: occupation, marriage, interactions between groups, and cultural
beliefs. The most important aspect of caste system involves marriage and occupation. Every member of the caste or a
sub-caste is required to marry within his or her own caste. Any violation of these rules result in excommunication from
the society. Rigid rules are placed in order to deter people from breaking away from the caste system. For example,
marrying outside ones caste usually leads to being outcast from the family. This type of system can be more clearly seen
form the Indian context of caste.
The Indian caste system is as stratification of people into four major groups known as the varnas. Traditionally
categorized based on ones occupation, these strata define ones access to status and privilege in the society. The varnas
are, from top to bottom: Brahmins or priests, Kshatriyas or warriors, Vaishyas or the merchants, Shudras or the
merchants. Outside these four groups are the untouchable. These were the people who did the jobs considered unclean
by the other varnas and were considered outcasts. The Hindu law books insisted that there were only four varnas and
that was used as a reason to not accept the tribal people of India into the mainstream community (Velassery, 2005).
However, the society still needed their service, therefore they still had to be part of the system but only in service of the
upper castes (Velassery, 2005). Hence the leadership positions are monopolized by the few higher castes while the other
castes existed as if to serve them.
The literal meaning of the word varna is various shades of texture or color and was supposed to represent mental
temperament. And a particular mental temper were said to be of a particular caste. Also, it can be interpreted that the
whole varna system is based on skin color. This explanation seems more plausible when we look at from a historical
point of view. Historically, the beginning of caste system is attributed to the arrival of the Aryans (Danial, 2010). Texts
from that period are the first to mention the factors that influenced the caste system. Aryans arrived from the southern
Europe and northern Asia and possed fair skin. In contrast, the indigenous people of India were dark skinned. As
previously mentioned the word varna does not mean caste or class, but color. Skin color so played an important role in
categorizing the peoples in to castes (Danial, 2010). Furthermore the Aryan practiced a particular form of social order
called Varna Vyavastha, which was based on the creation of four hierarchical divisions of society. In order of
decreasing importance the divisions were: religious and educational roles, military and political roles, economic roles,
and menial roles (Velassery, 2005). So what we know as the 'caste system' was originally developed as a functional
division of society. Its main function was to distribute the workload and make sure it was done efficiently. But when the
Aryans colonized India, they instituted the same system there, not only for the effective treatment of work, but also to
make sure that the conquered people would not rise in power.
Intuitively, one might be willing to differentiate between class and caste system. But in the Indian subculture ones caste
plays a huge role in how much that individual can achieve and how far can he rise in the society. So in essence ones
class is predetermined by the caste one was born in. As Velassery explains, a society is characterized by such a system
if it is divided into a large number of hereditarily specialized groups, which are hierarchically superposed and mutually
opposed. It does not tolerate the principle of rising in the status of groups mixture and of changing occupation

JAtinder final essay_Mcopy_.txt[4/9/2014 7:30:16 PM]

(Velassery, 2005). Nevertheless, some instances exist where a lower caste rose up in status by amassing considerable
wealth and power. Such instances give us insight into the class system of India. Class system, while not very prevalent
in the Indian culture, is slowly gaining a foothold as the country becomes more modernized. As long as India remained
an agrarian state, caste system was required to ensure the discipline and a sense of duty was present in the workers. But
as the country industrialized, such requirements became less and less important and only added to the resentment in the
lower castes.
The class system is a stratification of society in which ones social, educational, economic achievements play greater
roles in deciding ones future. And things like birth, religion, color and culture become less important in the greater
scheme of things. This type of system is more commonly found in the industrialized societies where ones individual
achievements are celebrated. Even though birth plays a significant role in deciding ones fate, one always has the
opportunity and social acceptance to rise up in status. As mentioned before, birth plays a significant role in both caste
and class system. But the difference lies in whether or not the person in stuck into his status by virtue of birth. While
caste system relies more on the individuals family and religion, the class system takes into account the financial and
social well being of the individual. Such separation based on economic power makes sure that there is always an
opportunity to gain higher ground in society.
From the above discussion of caste and class system, it is easy to notice how the shift from caste system to class system
is taking place. For centuries Indian society was agrarian and followed the caste system rigorously. And the oppression
of the lower castes was usually not argued against because this was seen as the natural state of affairs in the social order
(Smith, 1994). But after the annexation of India by the British, things began to change. The British brought with them
their own system of government and had little patience for the ways of the Hindu culture. Not only did the British
influence the main population in indirect ways, they also made a lot of the caste related trades impossible to maintain.
For example, due to the heavy importing of ready made textile and shoes, the lower caste were no longer required to be
cobblers and tailors. Many people changed the occupations that had been in their families for generations. So, the
introduction of factories changed the focus of occupation from caste to class.
The result has been that the higher and lower castes can now compete for similar occupations. Industrialization changes
the very fabric of the institution of caste in India. For example, recent reports have shown that many Brahmins are now
living in extreme poverty and do menial jobs, like cleaning the public latrines, that were traditionally attributed to the
lower castes (Gautier, 2006). This swing was started with the British government and continues to change the way
people think about caste. But even though a lot of progress has been made with regard curbing of caste, people still turn
to caste when the question of marriage comes up. That is one characteristic of caste system that still holds power in the
Indian sub-culture. This reminds us that caste system is still prevalent in modern India. It is a cancer that refuses to let
go of its host. It is a testimony to the endurance of traditional values that people still find it hard to let go of the rules of
behavior that are so deeply instilled in them.
In a caste ridden society, merit has little to do with ones station in life. Nobody can do much to change his/her caste and
education and better employment opportunities are nearly non-existent (Thorat, 2010). On the other hand, in class
system a lot is dependent on ones merit. Meritocracy is much more common in the class system of stratification. While
it seems that we have to indulge in the necessary evil of separating the population into different group though some sort
of system, merit is likely the most ethical and dependable o f all the systems. But despite this, it is seen that even though
meritocracy plays a significant role in industrialized societies, such societies also retain caste-like qualities. This might
be explained by considering the fact that meritocracy, despite being an admirable concept, diminishes the value of
family and cultural roots. Therefore, the trend in industrialized class system is such that it promotes meritocracy in order
to enhance productivity but at the same time retain caste like qualities to maintain social cohesion. This ensures that we
do not begin recognizing people by their jobs and give sufficient value to the family.
Though social stratifications may be seen as unjustified it does serve our society in subtle but powerful ways. According
to Davis-Moore thesis there are three basic functions that social stratification helps execute. Foremost, it helps in
maintain social order that help society function and exist as a single unit. Secondly it makes sure that all the important
social roles are filled. Thirdly it ensures that the people most efficient and suited at executing those roles fulfill the
social roles. Furthermore in a class system, social stratification helps classifying the citizens according to their merit.
Also it increases a sense of competition and makes people to focus of better education and skills that are required for
JAtinder final essay_Mcopy_.txt[4/9/2014 7:30:16 PM]

more important jobs. So, in essence, stratification of society came about because of functional necessity (Davis et al,
1945 ). And the main necessity of a society is placing and motivating individuals in the social structure. Social
inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies ensure that the most important positions are
conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons (Davis et al, 1945). So it can be concluded, from Davis view point
of view social stratification is necessary for the efficient functioning of society.
Social Stratification and social inequality maintain a symbiotic relationship. Each helps the other flourish. Any pattern
of stratification will produce inequality and vice-versa. Moore-Davis thesis justifies this inequality in social structure by
stating that every society needs specialization of some jobs. And greater the difficulty of the job, the better the amount
of training required to accomplish it. In contrast simple tasks will require lower intelligence and training. So, it is natural
to give preferential treatment to those who perform the difficult tasks than the ones who only do the easier jobs.
Furthermore, Davis and Moore state that unequal distribution of society is required to encourage people to strive for
better jobs and training. And that the higher reward associated with a particular job described its importance in the
society.
Davis-Moore thesis represents the functionalist approach to describing social inequality. Melvin Tumin (1953),
however, challenges Davis Moore thesis and states that if the thesis were true, every society would be meritocracies.
Rather, Tumin discovered, that gender and financial backings were more important in deciding the position and status of
an individual. He argues that inequality does not help the society as it stops the less financially well-off people from
advancing in society. He backs this claim by saying that people with more money have access to better education and
hence get better paying jobs. In turn their children have access to better education for similar reasons. On the other hand
the poor would be left without opportunities (Tumin, 1953). Inequality therefore creates a circle of poverty and a circle
of riches, neither of which can be broken without outside interference.
The above discussion aims to identify and analyze the arguments surrounding the class and caste system. From the
discussion it can be inferred that both caste and class system arose out of a functional necessity of the society which was
to classify people in order to increase productivity. The caste system later took on religious overtones and was used as
an excuse to shun an entire culture and community of people from the mainstream society. But the class system still
remains the go- to system for contemporary, industrialized, world. To drill down to the bedrock of my concern, while I
find the concept of stratification intuitively unjustified, the effectiveness of the system is unquestionable. Tough the
form and state of stratification may keep on changing; I believe that it will always be a part of our society. It is not as
bleak a prediction as it seems to be because the very concept of society requires that we separate people into various
groups to ensure efficiency. What may need to change in future is the level of inequality. It would not be beneficial for
the society if the rift between lower and higher class/caste were too wide to be rationally bridged.
References:
Daniel, Aharon. "Caste System in Modern India." Adaniel's Info Site. Web. 4 Nov. 2010.
Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. (1970 [1945]). "Some principles of stratification." American Sociological
Review, 10 (2), 242-9.
Gautier, Francois, Are Brahmins the Dalits of Today? Rediff News, 2006-05-23.
Hutton, J. H. Caste in India: Its Nature, Function and Origins. Indian Branch, Oxford University Press, 1963. Print.
Smith, Brian K. Classifying the Universe: the Ancient Indian Varn a System and the Origins ofCaste. New York:
Oxford UP, 1994. Print.
Thorat, Sukhadeo, and Newman, Katherine, Blocked by Caste: Economic
Discrimination and Social Exclusion in Modern India, Oxford University Press, 2010.

JAtinder final essay_Mcopy_.txt[4/9/2014 7:30:16 PM]

Tumin, M. M. (1953). "Some principles of stratification: a critical analysis." American Sociological Review, 18, 38797.
Velassery, Sebastian. Casteism and Human Rights: toward an Ontology of the Social Order. Singapore: Marshall
Cavendish Academic, 2005. Print.

JAtinder final essay_Mcopy_.txt[4/9/2014 7:30:16 PM]