Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I It II NOS OF FRIENDS
N fWIH'k , Manipulators, and Coalitions Andre Beteille
I,., fII" llolssevatn .
Contents.
129
6 Continuity and Change
7 The Egalitarian Society 153
~
", Index 173
I••
...
4 The Two Sources of Inequality
their own social hierarchy, its origin and source. But it is only when
we compare in a s stematic wa the inequalities in. our own societ
with t ose resent in others that a sociological appraoch to the prob-
I lem is initiated. It hardly needs to e sal tat e POSSI I tties 0
sJ;tematic comparison between widely different societies were
strictly limited until a little Over a hundred years ago.
@ystematic studies of inequality based ~n the careful ~bs~rvation
and recording of facts began to be made In Western SocIetIes from
the beginning of the nineteenth century;) These studies were at first
set almost entirelv in a historical context, their objective being to
determine whethe~ inequalities were increasing or decreasing. Des-
criptions of facts were frequently mixed up with judgements of
'1
value because the facts were not always easily available and because
most writers felt free and even obliged to express their judgement
on important moral questions,
\ During the last fifty years a vast body of empirical material h_~~_
been collected systematically covering almost every important aspect
,
i,
I
forms of inequality are to be found today not In t e Industria,
SOCietIes 0 t e est u In some 0 t e pre ominantly a2 dan
". ra
•.societies of the Third World; These societies reveal some of the
- ;
The Two sources oJ Jfle'JuuII'Y
6 The Two Sources of Inequality :1\
"
This poInt needs to be mude, for to the contemporary Western mind The Two Sources of Inequality 17
the sphere of kinship Is the sphere of equality; this is by no means words, the very things which give order and coherence to society
the case universally. are also responsible for maintaining inequality among its members.
I have. considered so far the problems of organisation only in Sociology began as a discipline by asking what holds a society
territorial groups. But these problems exist in all forms of association: together, what gives it coherence and design, what makes it some-
territorial groups such as the village or the state provide only a thing more than a mere aggregate of individuals. Today we no longer
kind of model through which we can understand and explain them. put the question in the form in which it was put by moral philosophers
The problems of organisation, and of the inequalities of power in the eighteenth century and earlier who wanted to discover how
inherent in them have been studied in diverse forms of association and under what conditions individual human beings living in a state
ranging from religious sects (often based on egalitarian values) to of nature came together and created a society. Perhaps we realise f)
social clubs (designed generally for companionship among equals). today that this question cannot be probfrly answered by the methods
(When w,e move from simple, smal1~scale tribal communities to available to us. Moreover human beings always and everywhere live
complex, l~rge-scale industrial societies, positions of power and in society. The problem thereforeis tofftJ.d out not how society origi-
authority multiply, and become more clearly defined and more nated but how it is maintained.
elaboratelyistructure~ Organisation is a pervasive feature of indust- Among the first sociologists to raise this question and to attempt
rial societids, whether we take democratic or totalitarian regimes. a rigorous answer to it were Emile Durkheim and his associates in
In these societies organisation is aided by technical devices of a kind France at the turn of the century. Durkheim drew on an earlier tradi-
which Wasnot dreamt of even in the most despotiC of tribal societies. tion of French social thought, notably that of Montesquieu and also
, Given the elaborate nature of the apparatus of power and authority of Rousseau, but gave his own distinctive answer to the question.
I in industrial societies, it is difficult to see how control over it could Collective representations, shared ideas and values, or culture are,
I . be made equally accessible to all. according to Durkheim, the fundamental factors that give unity,
It is far from my intention to argue that wherever there is a con- coherence and design to social life. Durkheim has been reproached
centration of power there must also be art abuse of power. That is a by his critics for ignoring the place of force, power and domination
separat~ question which has led some to the conclusion, which.I in society. It is true also that he did hot show systematically how
find to be of doubtful value, that the solution to our modern prob- common values are linked to social inequality, although this has
lems lies in a return to a life based on simple, small-scale communities. been done by his most important modern interpreter, Talcott Parsons.
All I have- said, even the simplest communities are not free from Other sociologists, notably Pareto, Mosca and Michels who were
Inequalities of power, and if these generally appear .small or neg- all contemporaries of Durkheim, have emphasised the part played
" Ible, this may partly be .because we assess them according-ro by force, power and domination in holding society together. Their
IItnndards wh!ch are not always appropriate to them. work also can be related to an earlier tradition, going back in this
case to the fifteenth-century Italian political philosopher, Niccolo
V hnvo tried to interpret the prevalence of inequality among men in Machiavelli -. The work of Michels in particular presents a lucid
f 1'111.of two principal phenomena, evaluation and organisation. analysis of the relationship between organisation and the inequality
Tlit-lio In their turn are rooted in culture on the one hand and power of power, a rel~ionship which has been summed up in the 'Iron law
till tho other, without either of which human society as we know it
of oligarchy'.»
I III onccivabl~ Different scholars have given different degrees of We do not have a sociological theory which synthesises in a satis-
1I1phnRis to these factors, some attaching more importance to com- factory way the two approaches presented above. Most attempts at
1111111 vnlucs and others to power. (.J}utthe interesting point is that synthesis miss what in my view is the essential point that it may not
f II nr nIso the factors which, in the opinion of rost, hold a be possible to reduce the problem of either order or inequality to
lid ty together and ensure its continuity as a living wnole.'Jn other one single, unifying principle. So far at least, attempts to reduce the
. j
problem of power to that of 'legitimate' power and to explain it in
Til • 1. WO (JUn.:"" "J •••.•.... I
\1
•• with wealth. Wealth is esteemed as a thing in itself and it also enau'lc
18 The Two Sources of Inequality V
a person! to have .co~mand over other But this is by no means
If terms of culture have proved ttft,e no more fruitful than attempts to the case in all SOCieties,and even under the most extreme form of
explain common values or systems of evaluation by a theory of capitalism there are other avenues than wealth to both status and
power or of material interests. In other words, the theoretical
approach of which I am mistrustful is the one for which the bad power.
One can in fact take examples from modern Western societies to
name is 'reductionist' and the good name is 'unified'; the approach show that although status·and power are often combined, the de-
which I propose to follow is described as 'pluralist' by its advocates mands of the two are in many ways incompatible. Status groups
and 'eclectic' by its critics. are as it were by their nature exclusive; the symbols of status are
(Corresponding to the two principal sources of inequality are the exclusive and, if they are to maintain their superiority of status,
11\ major dimensions of inequality, or its two major scales of gradation. people must pursue exclusive styles of life. On the other hand, demo- I
These are commonly described as the scale or dimension of status on cratic politics, which is one of the important avenues of power in I
the one hand and of power on the other. Status relates to the esteem modern societies, requires aspirants to power to define their identity
and respect that are accorded to qualities and positions which are in inclusive rather than exclusive terms. It is thus that in countries
valued in themselves; it is of the essence that esteem and respect are like Britain~r India-leaders of the people often pursue/~)lle style
here freely accorded. Power refers to the obedience and compliance of life in private (for thems,elves and their family) and a different
that some more than others are able to command by virtue of'the st1l~ of life in public (fO.r themselves and their constituents).
positions they hold in society; here it is of the essence that some are (Jhus it is clear that' while status and power are to some extent
able to impose their will on others despite their resistanc~ mutually convertible, one cannot be wholly reduced to the other.
It must be made clear that power and status are analytically Status._?-nd power are based on different principles which appear
separable'concepts, that the scale of status is different from that of beyond a certilih'pointto be incompatible'. Schemes of analysis
power. It is of course true that the same person may enjoy both which seek to explain all forms of inequality by a single principle
status and power, although not to the same extent in every society. often end with either tautology or platitude~ No general study of
Some societies even take pains to keep the two separate inprincip1e. inequality can be regarded as truly sociologica1 unless it places due
Thus, it has been said that in traditional Hindu society a separation emphasis on the almost endless variety of the actual forms of
was made in principle between the Brahmin and the king, the former
inequality. '
being accorded the highest status, the latter enjoying the most Given the fact that all societies apply schemes of evaluation, one
can think of many such schemes since the criteria of evaluation are
power-
It is also easy to see that whatever the formal principle might be, many. It would be useless to attempt an inventory of all the criteria
in practice status and power can to some extent be converted into that have been devised and used by men throughout the world for
each other in every society. Those to whom people show esteem and placing each other on a hierarchy of status. Even if the number of
respect of their own accord can and often do use their position to such criteria is not unlimited, it must be quite large. One may perhaps
command obedience from the same people and from others; but think of each culture as selecting from the total stock a limited
there is a limit beyond which this becomes a hazardous venture, for number of criteria and using them in the discrimination and ranking
respect and esteem which are freely givencatl also be freely with- of groups and individuals.
drawn. Likewise, those who command obedience also enjoy some Clearly there are attempts within each culture to bring about some
respect. if not from everyone at least from their subordinates; but consistency between the different criteria of evaluation, and one
here again people in power seem to enjoy the most respect when they obvious way of doing this is by placing the criteria themselve& in
are furthest removed from the ultimate source of power which is some kind of a hierarchy. Here again, one may say that a single,
physical compulsion. unified hierarchy of all the criteria of evaluation recognised ir a
( 1n modern Western societies status and power are often confused
because under capitalism both are to a considerable extent associated
The Two Sources 01 Inequality 21
20 The Two Sources (II "'Ilt/,lt/Ilty
deal in greater detail with evaluation and hierarchies of status,
society is more an ideal thnn 1\ reality. One may go further and say
taking a number of familiar examples. After considering some of the
that it is more an ldeal r
t h ld 01 gues than of the ordinary people
major premises on which systems of hierarchical values have been
who in all societies apply more than one scheme of status gradation
built; I shall examine in detail social gradation in the Indian caste
without being acutely. troubled by the need to be logically consistent.
system, which has gone further than perhaps any other system in the
The problems of organisations likewise vary greatly according to
elaborateness and rigour with which it has developed an ideology
'the size, location and distribution of the population, the history of
the people, their social and cultural diversity, the material resources of hierarchy. I shall then consider briefly gradations of status and
available to them, and the technological apparatus at their command. ideas of hierarchy in some other societies.
Just as human beings have in different places and times created a In chapter 3 I shall devote myself to the problems of organisation
and the distribution of power. Here I shall examine in some detail
variety of schemes of evaluation, they have in the same way devised'
the place of rules and sanctions in social life. After considering their
a variety of forms of organisation. As a consequence, the distribution
place in simple organisations, I shall show how rules and sanctions
of p0'Yer, like the gradation of status, varies from one society to
are co-ordinated in organisations on a large scale. I shall discuss in
another. .
some detail the part played by the centralised state in modern
. Since we have argued that the gradation of status and the distri-
industrial societies in creating and maintaining inequalities of power
bution of power vary to some extent independently of each other,
and, through them, other types of social inequality. I shall try to
we must examine each of these separately and in their mutual reia-
show that the distribution of power sustains inequalities in demo-
tionshipsin order to form a proper understanding of the systems
of social inequality. In its detail the system of inequality in each cratic as well as totalitarian regimes.
Ci"nequalities of status and of power are universal features of
society is a unique combination of a number of different factors.
human societies. It is true that hierarchical values have been developed
This does notmean that societies cannot be grouped together for
much more elaborately in some societies than in others just as central-
purposes of comparative study. However, we must remember that
ised states have been organised much more efficiently in some
-the number and complexity of the factors involved make all classi-
fications to some extent arbitrary. There is no danger when we use countries than in others, but the logic of~erarchy and of dominance
a classification as a rough guide in the systematic study of reality; is in its fundamentals everywhere the same; There are two major
the danger arises only when we begin to regard it as a fixed and manifestations of inequality in contempojary societies which I shall
treat separately in the two succeeding chapters. Chapter 4 is devoted
unalterable scheme.
to property and social class, and chapter 5 to race and social strati-
I shall now give a brief outline of the plan of the book. As I have fication.
Class is the term most widely used in the modern world to des-
already indicated, I do not pretend to have a unified general theory
cribe the inequalities among groups or categories of persons. It is so
which will ,at once explain all forms of social inequality, and I do
widely used, not only by scholars but by people in every walk of life,
not believe that such a theory exists or is likely to come into existence
that it may appear futile to try to fix a single, specific meaning to it.
in the forseeablefuture. At the same time, I do not propose to des-
Underlying the variety of meanings given to the term, there is the
cribe a series' of cases of social inequality, choosing from among the
view, often explicit and almost always implicit, that class is based on
many that are available a few on some basis of representativeness.
economic factors. As is well known,(Marx linked the concept of
What I propose is to discuss some of the main or, better, more
class to the institution of property or private ownership of the means
interesting forms of inequality prevalent in contemporary societies
of production)This in my view is the most fruitful way of looking at
in terms of certain basic principles whose mutual relationsv.as I
class; but if we look at it in this way, we see it as being historically
have already indicated, are to some extent indeterminate.
specific, manifest in some societies but not in all, unlike status and
I have briefly indicated above the nature of evaluation and its
significance for the gradation of status. In the next chapter I shall power which are universal features of social life.
22 The Two Sources of inequality
In studying property and class, we examine as it were the interplay
of status and power in a given institutional field. Property, wealth
and income give access to things that are valued; income is valued in
Notes and References
The Two Sources of Inequality
,
• I