Untouchability as a Social Problem:
Theory and Research
R. D. Lambert
The purpose of this paper is to consider in terms of general
sociological theory some of the features of untouchability as a social
problem and from these considerations to indicate some directions for
research by sociologists which might both advance general social
science knowledge and assist the administrator concerned with finding
solutions to the problem. It is not an assessment of current
programmes nor is an essay in praise or blame of one or another
group—these tasks are highly inappropriate for an outsider. First a
definition: Social problems are sets of social practices and
conditions characteristic of a major segment of a society which
contravene the official norms and which the legitimized spokesmen or
the society feel must be eradicated.
Social Practices and Conditions
When talking about the problem of untouchability, one is really
discussing several different classes of social practices and conditions.
In the first place there are the actual practices among the majority
group which operationally define untouchability: prohibition of social
intercourse; denial of access to wells, temples, schools; residential
segregation and stigmatization in general. It is these formalized
disabilities which the Constitution prohibits and which encompass
"the practice of untouchability. " Second, there are the behaviour
traits and attributes of the stigmatized groups themselves which, in
terms of prevalent social mores, justify the assignment to these
groups of fewer of the rewards of society such as prestige, wealth
and power.
Every stratification system sets high values upon conformity to
certain forms of behaviour and assigns low position to those who
deviate most. "Backwardness" is a general term for this and in
India is exemplified by the earlier term "backward tribes and castes. "
The opposite of being backward is being "advanced" and in specific
form it usually includes cleanliness (both physical and symbolic),
literacy, sharing and contributing to the mainstream of cultural
accomplish* Read at the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Society held on 23rd March 1957.
56
merit, and exercising political or economic power. It is difficult for
a society to alter its fundamental value system, although current
amelioration programs attempt to do this in regard to ritual impurity,
interestingly enough by labelling religious discrimination as
"backward. " Ordinarily the value system which lies behind the
stratification hierarchy remains relatively intact and those who
attempt to "uplift" (i. e., raise in the stratification system) the problem
groups do several things simultaneously. They attempt to prove that
the negative stereotypes are not true, or perhaps that all stereotyping
is bad and individuals should be treated as individuals. They
attempt to show that those negatively valued traits which are in fact
held by the problem groups are the consequence of poverty and
exclusion from the major society. They attempt to provide the
problem groups with some of the attributes ordinarily associated with
high prestige segments in the society: education, land ownership,
political power and governmental posts.
The research interests of the sociologists are fairly clear. He
should be interested first in the general categorical value system
which defines the relative prestige of groups—not just how the groups
rank in a prestige scale, but what are the positively valued attributes
which those low in the hierarchy lack or are thought to lack and what
are the negatively valued attributes which they are thought to
possess. In framing research hypotheses in this area, the analyst
must break omnibus terms into their operational components. For
instance, it is clear that while poverty is in general negatively valued,
it is not so for ascetics and in fact great wealth is often viewed with
suspicion and disapprobation. Moreover, the removal of poverty alone
without a change in other behaviour traits common among groups
currently in the poverty class tends to bring social disapproval. While
it is true that those high in the stratification system are not usually
poverty stricken, the converse is not necessarily true that except for
poverty those low in the status system would be treated as equals.
One wonders how Cinderella fitted into the castle once she got there. In
popular philosophy the relationship between poverty and social
status is far too simple. In addition to poverty, the other attributes
must be operationally defined before they can be subject to research.
The sociologist might also concern himself with the discovery of
strategic variables which will most rapidly raise the status of the lower
groups. Should the whole depressed community be raised by small
gradual steps or is it more efficient to select a few individuals from
the lowest groups and place them in the highest positions in the so-
57
ciety both to combat stereotypes of innate inferiority and to provide
internal leadership for the groups ?
Finally, the sociologist might analyse the forms of behaviour
among the individuals in the larger society which mark their
relations with status inferiors. He should be particularly interested in
the system of sanctions which is used to penalize attempts of the
low status groups to climb up the hierarchy and to reward those who
remain quietly in their low position. Here again strategic points for
change should be noted.
Major Segment of Society
Different social problems involve different sections of a society,
these sections varying in size, functional position and homogeneity.
Most of the social problems we encounter in western societies affect
relatively small segments of the population which are functionally
unimportant or actively dysfunctional and which are composed of
individuals otherwise disparate in their social characteristics.
Divorce, crime, juvenile delinquency, alcoholism, mental illness and
even poverty fit this characterization. They affect "major segments"
only because the deviations from the norms of society are so sharp and
attract such strong moral sanctions that society must somehow
attend to them. In the case of untouchability, the problem is very
different. The problem group is not numerically small, nor is it
functionally unimportant or dysfunctional. When viewed in terms
other than the extremes of untouchability, the cut-off point becomes
blurred and the problem group encompasses the whole lower end of the
stratification system. A good illustration of this is found in the report of
the Backward Classes Commission where the general procedure was to
accept the previous list of Scheduled Castes and Tribes which
purported to include those who suffered from untouchability per se
and add to it a list of "other backward classes" defined according to
various social characteristics indicating a disproportionately low share
in the distribution of social and economic rewards. This group was
officially estimated at about 32 per cent of the total population. To
see the broad net cast by the Commission, consider the following
definition of other backward classes.
"those who do not command a large amount of influence; those
who do not command a large amount of natural resources, such as
lands, mines, forests, money or industrial undertakings; those who
live in unsanitary surroundings and in ill-ventilated houses; those who
are nomadic; those who live by begging and other unwholesome means;
those who are agricultural labourers or those who practise unremune-
58
rative occupations without any means to enter better paying
professions; and those who on account of poverty, ignorance or other
social disabilities are unable to educate themselves or produce sufficient
leadership, are all backward. The communities, classes or social
groups who occupy an inferior social position in relation to the upper
castes and who answer the above description or at least major
sections of such communities or classes as answer the above
description, naturally come under the category of Other Backward
Classes. " (Vol. I, p. 46).
To an American this approach is reminiscent of Franklin D.
Roosevelt's oft-quoted remark that one-third of the nation (U. S. A. )
was ill-housed, ill-clothed and ill-fed. Under such a conception the
social problem becomes the general one of levelling the society by
treating inequalities as inequities, and by raising the standard of living
of the entire society. In the face of such a task sociologists feel
exhilarated but lost, and usually abandon the field to the more surefooted economists.
It does seem, however, that particularly in India the sociologist
has several important contributions to make. He should first
distinguish the sub-groups herded together under the single umbrella
category of backwardness. That they are not otherwise homogeneous is
apparent at a glance. Particularly must he combat the notion that
the backward classes are composed of groups without internal
structure, without their own norms of behaviour and patterns of life.
The entry of new patterns must displace or alter the old, and
particularly at the lower levels, the old patterns tend to be quite
resistant to change. He should emerge with a typology of groups
defined on structural criteria relevant to their upward mobility and not
on economic or ethnographic criteria alone.
A special part of these studies should involve the examination of
the functional relationships which exist between these sub-groups and
the elements of the major society which surround them. It is
apparent that these lower elements perform important economic and
social functions and are bound in complex webs of interrelationship
such as the jajmani or balutedar systems and in the organization of
agriculture to maximize the usefulness of landless agricultural labour.
Satisfactory alternative solutions must be found for the functional
needs which these groups at present fulfill.
Official Norms
The term norm signifies a prescribed pattern of behaviour and the
phrase "official norms" is used to indicate the rigidly prescribed defini-
59
tions of ideal behaviour etched in black and white as contrasted with
the broad band of norms, more gray, which guide the day-to-day
behaviour of most members of a society. It also serves to distinguish
between norms within a group, such as criminals, which may be at
sharp variance with those of the larger society. As has been noted
above, most social problems the sociologist has to deal with are clear
violations of official norms. All norms, however, vary in at least the
following characteristics; specificity, universality, rigidity and the
strength of the attached sanctions. In the case of untouchability we
have one highly diffuse and generalized norm (equalitarianism)
opposed to a complex set of specific norms defining not only the forms of
avoidance but a host of other rigidly defined norms covering a wide
variety of inter-personal relations and roles. The rules of behaviour
prescribed for these low in the social hierarchy not only symbolize
their inferior position but also impel these groups to perform some of
the necessary but stigmatized social and economic roles with little or
no compensation in prestige or pay. These norms may be negative
such as prohibition of temple entry or use of the main village well,
or positive indicating that such and such a group will perform the
function of scavenging, sweeping, leather work, etc. It should not be
assumed that these norms are held only by the higher caste groups;
many of them are internalized by the communities to which they
apply and need no outside pressure to enforce them. The
displacement of a complex of specific norms by a highly diffuse norm
requires that the latter be translated in turn into a set of specific
norms and the battle for displacement usually is at the level of a
struggle over each of the specific norms. In the case of
untouchability, there is even some doubt as to whether the general
equalitarian norm is widely subscribed to and there are relatively few
specific norms which positively define equalitarian behaviour. The
greatest hope appears to be that the discriminatory norms will become
not displaced but irrelevant. This is what is usually meant by the
observation that untouchability is a village problem. In the urban areas
many of the old norms and functional relationships which marked
untouchability have lost their meaning. It is also likely that the general
equalitarian norm has wider acceptance in the urban than the rural
area.
In research, the sociologist might well concentrate upon defining
the specific norms and functional relationships which apply at the
lower levels of the stratification system. Clusters of norms should
be sought both by seeing which norms tend to be found together
in a wide variety of circumstances and by seeing which norms tend
to change when other specific norms are changed. He should be alert
60
to the development of new norms in the urban areas which reinforce
or oppose obsolete village norms. He should seek to transform the
generalized equalitarian norm into more specific, positive norms and
in controlled situations attempt to discover the most effective means
of substituting one set of norms for another. He should be concerned
with systems of sanctions which are used to enforce the norms
currently in existence and possible sets of sanctions which can be
applied to newer sets of norms. Finally, and more generally, he should
attempt to make a mapping of each norm, its variations, the number
of people to which it applies, functional role it performs, and the
extent to which it can be displaced.
Legitimized Spokesmen
The term "legitimized spokesmen of the society" refers to the
arbiters of official norms whom society recognizes for one reason or
another as competent to speak for it in defining norms. In a highly
formalized society, the legitimatised spokesmen will be individuals
filling institutional positions such as government officials, clergymen or
religious leaders. In less formalized societies they will be what are
called "influentials" who possess highly valued attributes such as age,
wealth, education, spiritual attainment and family position. The
extent to which all members of the society agree upon the legitimized
spokesmen is one index of the integration of that society. The
problem with respect to untouchability in India is immediately
apparent. In the first place, few spokesmen can effectively speak for a
very large segment of society, hence the introduction of planned
change becomes exceedingly difficult. Not only are the
institutionalized spokesmen few, but different sets of spokesmen are
influential in determining norms for small groups only or for highly
specialized forms of behaviour. The one highly centralized social
institution with a universally recognized process for legitimatizing
leaders is the government and hence it is the one most frequently
called upon to introduce social changes in everything from
economic patterns to calendar reform to removal of untouchability. Its
centralization, however, makes it far removed from the local situations
in which untouchability operates. Moreover, the proper sphere of
governmental influence as conceived in the villages does not include
the regulation of social behaviour. Government efforts are bound to
be greatly attenuated by the time they reach the village level where
they must somehow reach and convince the appropriate influentials
who are by no means clearly defined. This is not to say that
governmental efforts are of no avail. Government exercises the
very considerable sanctioning
61
power of the courts and the police, and discriminatory economic
legislation. They currently have high prestige and exhortations from
such a prestigious source must at least reinforce those in local
situations who favour the removal of untouchability. And finally,
they have at their command a series of rewards which they can
distribute in a discriminatory manner to indirectly affect the socioeconomic status of the lower groups. Primary among these is
scholarships, but the list also includes the extension of credit
facilities, and a disproportionate share of economic development
funds. So effective are these rewards that a number of Brahmins in
my sample of Poona labour, when asked what castes they thought had
the best chances for advancement in life mentioned Harijans above all
others and specified non-Brahmin as a general preferred category.
The sociologist's task, then, is the identification of these
legitimized spokesmen who are influential in the value system lying
behind stratification and describing and classifying the ways in which
their influence operates in maintaining and changing norms. This
involves more than a general study of village leadership. It calls for
focused studies of those leaders whose influence is important in this
particular social problem and the most effective means of reaching
them. As a corollary, the sociologist should seek ways of detecting and
strengthening the position of those already committed to the
equalitarian ethic as this may be easier than converting those with a
vested interest in the present stratification norms.
In summary, then, the sociologist needs to undertake studies
pinpointing the social characteristics and conditions of various
subgroups lying at the bottom of the stratification system, clarify the
relationships between the segments of society, study the behavioral
norms which underwrite the untouchability system, and discover the
legitimized spokesmen relevant to the alteration of these norms. These
are no easy tasks.