I
Social inequality is a perennial and a universal social problem as it gives rise
to high and low social status in world societies. The principles on which it rests
determine the distribution of societal resources among individuals, families and
groups. It is multi-dimensional and dynamic. It is: not monolithic.' All industrialized
societies today have structures of inequality derived out of unequal economic and
social positions. The socio-economic inequality brings about changes in the life of
people. Hence it is important to study this phenomenon as it is a prominent feature of
any society.
There are two important consorted views regarding inequality. According to
one view, inequality is directly linked to conditions inherent in the nature of society,
which cannot be eliminated. Another view considers it a result of the conscious,
intentional and willful actions of individuals or structures created in society which
can be altered. It is for this reason that social stratification is sometimes also called
structured social inequality in order to emphasize that it is built into society. That is,
it is supported by widely accepted norms and values. 2 Income, wealth, gender,
ethnicity, power, status, age and religion are some of the positions on which the
society is stratified into various layers. These layers are considered unequal in
relation to each other.
K.L. Sharma, Social Stratification in India: Issues and Themes (New Delhi: Sage Publications,
1997), pp. 17-18.
2
L.Linda Lindsey and Stephen Beach, Sociology (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002), p.240.
2
India has long been reckoned as the most stratified of all known human
societies. Therefore, social stratification in India is a very sensitive field of study. It
also occupies a special place in the study of Indian society. The uniqueness of the
influence of this institution in India has captivated sociologists-and anthropologists
for generations because in India, all the people irrespective of their region are in one
way or other part of the system of social stratification.3
There are two major types of stratification prevalent in India. One is a closed
system and the other is an open system. The former is based on ascribed status and
permits very little social mobility. Relatively, the latter on the other hand, focuses
more on achievement and permits substantial upward and downward mobility. 4 As a
matter of fact, caste and class are the two main and obvious criteria of social
stratification in India. Caste is considered a closed system and class is an open
system. The outstanding quality of literature and discussions on these systems tend to
subsume the entire field of social stratification. Some other recognized units of
stratification are age, gender, race and ethnicity.
Social stratification is different from social differentiation. The term
'differentiation' has broader application as it makes individuals and groups separate
and distinct from each other for the purpose of comparison. For example, within
class strata, income, occupation and education provide basis for differentiation.
Surendra Sharma, Studies on Social Stratification: A Sociology of Knowledge Perspective, as
quoted in K.L.Sharma, Social Stratification and Mobility (Jaipur:Rawat Publications, 1994), p.16.
' Melvin Tumin, Social Stratification: The Forms and Functions of Inequality, (New Jersey:
PrenticeHall, 1985), p.17.
3
Stratification occurs where differences are ranked hierarchically. 5 It is only when
differences are externalized and socially demonstrated, social stratification comes
into existence. It is for this reason that when one talks of social stratification it meant
not just differentiation, but the differentiation that is made socially visible. Social
stratification also attributes value and meaning to social differentiation.6
However, one must remember that it is not at all the case that a society
should exhibit only one form of social stratification. In India for instance, the extant
forms of social stratification are many. For instance, caste system itself coexists with
occupational stratification, linguistic stratification, sexual stratification, religious
stratification etc. It is also important to remember that each of these forms of
stratification has its own axial principles. 7 As such social stratification is
multifaceted and multi-causal. For example, caste is not just a system of social
stratification based on ritual purity and pollution of people, things and occupations.
Economic and power dimensions have also been the central foci of the caste system.
Caste, class, race and ethnicity are certainly different forms of social stratification.
These are also found embedded in each other. 8 However, caste and class have
emerged as two major principles of social stratification in India.
Social class, largely determined by income, occupation and power is an
important aspect of social stratification in contemporary societies. People in the same
Ram Ahuja, Society in India: Concepts, Theories and Changing Trends (New Delhi:Rawat
Publications, 2002), p.35.
6
F. Anthias, Rethinking Social Divisions in Sociological Review, Vol.32, No.3,1998, pp.506-35.
Dipankar Gupta, Social Stratification, ed. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.4.
8
K.L. Sharma, Social Stratification in India ...., op .cit. p.14.
4
class share not only their interest over economic resources, but also similar interest
in consumption patterns, life style etc. 9 Caste, an age-old social institution, is
entwined with the life of Indians in all respects. It still remains the basic and
dominant criterion- of social stratification across- India. Studying any system of social
stratification in India without referring to caste system would be incomplete as it
greatly influences the social life of Indians. Therefore, in contemporary India,
preferably class can be studied in relation to caste. However, class has emerged as an
important system of stratification.'° As such, the present study primarily focuses on
class in industry, but, simultaneously caste relations in comparison to class relations
are discussed wherever necessary.
Caste
Caste identities are regarded as a powerful source of stratification in
contemporary India. It is often assumed that a caste mentality is embedded in 'the
Indian psyche'. The phenomenon which we now call caste was identified and named
by western observers of India at an early stage in the colonial period. It continues to
survive as a salient feature of Indian society. It retains separate identity, but various
caste groups are related to each other as constituent units of wider Hindu community.
Caste continues to be a pivotal force in guiding social relations in Indian society. It is
a closed system denying social mobility. Connubiality and commensality are
considered the fundamental principles of inter-caste relations based on the ascription
Nicholas Aberchrombie, Sociology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), pp.80-81.
'° G.Karunanithi, Caste and Class in Industrial Organization (New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers,
1991), p.18.
5
of caste rank by birth. Pollution-purity, endogamy, caste based ethnocentrism and
mobilization are articulated as important criteria supporting the super-organic
character of the caste system.'
According to Dumont, the English word 'caste' has been derived from the
root words caste (Portuguese) and castus (Spanish). The word caste in Portuguese
refers to something not mixed, a pure breed, and castus signifies chastity. The term
has been applied to India by the Portuguese in the middle of the fifteenth century.
Dumont observes that caste stands for inequality in both theory and practice. In
many Indian languages, the word jati is used indiscriminately for what the English
people label caste. Dumont considers the fundamental opposition between the pure
and the impure as the hallmark of the caste system. He also considers caste as a
unique system of ideas encompassing all other aspects of society. For him it is the
sole institution of social ranking in India.
12
His theory of caste remarkably depends
on axioms especially about the Brahman-Kshatriya relationship within the varna
hierarchy that he derives from early Hindu religious texts and the data predominantly
from ethnographic studies of Indian rural society.
M.N. Srinivas considers caste as the basis of inter-group relations based on
the principles of pollution-purity. He notes the pre-eminence of religious values in
caste system. ' 3 He also observes that endogamy, hierarchy, heredity and traditional
K.L Sharma, Social Stratification in India....,op. cit., pp.23-24.
Louis Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), PP . 21-26.
13 M.N Srinivas, Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India (Bombay: Oxford
University Press, 1952), pp. 50-59.
11
12
occupation are the features that sustain
it. 14 He contemplates on the occupational
aspects of caste system and finds that co-operation among various castes is essential
for several social activities in India. For instance, agricultural production requires cooperation 'of various castes at various production stages. , ' 5 For hinij caste society is a
holistic and hierarchical one and inimical to individualism.
16
Dube prefers to use the term jati instead of caste as the later has different
meanings and social categories for him. He considers that ritual privileges rather than
economy is used for ranking caste. 17 Jatis are endogamous and hierarchically graded
units. People in the same jail normally share same culture.' 8 The relationship
between caste system and the concept of purity-pollution is also supported by
Dube. 19 Mayer highlights the ascriptive nature of caste in terms of the link between
caste and kinship. He also explains the relationship between caste and sub-caste. For
him, sub-caste is the largest division within a caste which has enough properties like
a caste. But, it is a part of the caste and must not be explained as a separate entity.
For him, caste is a significant unit only in relation with other castes. 20 Senart
observes caste as a circumscribed and separatist organism by nature. Caste preserves
4
M.N.Srinivas, Social Change in Modern India (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1966), pp. 3-9.
M.N.Srinivas, The Future of Indian Caste in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.14, No.7,
1979, pp.237-42.
6
M.N.Srinivas, Some Reflections on the Nature of Caste Hierarchy in Contributions to Indian
Sociology,Vol.18, No.2, 1984, p.152.
17
S.0 Dube, Indian Village (Bombay: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), pp. 15-28.
8
S.0 Dube, Indian Society (New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1990), p.54.
19 S.0 Dube,Cultural Factors in Rural Development in The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.16,
1956, pp. 19-30.
20 A.0 Mayer, Caste and Kinship in Central India (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1960),
pp.6-7
15
VA
its own integrity with a pre-occupation that effects even the most humble of
members. 21
Dipankar Gupta defines •caste -as a "form of differentiation wherein the
constituent units of system justify endogamy on the basis of presumed biological
differences which are signaled and conveyed by the ritualization of multiple social
practices". He views caste system as composed of discrete categories and not as
continuous hierarchy.
22 Beteille follows the Weberian stand in defining caste. He
defines caste as a "segmentary system with its several segments or levels operating
as 'status groups' characterized by distinctive style of life and consciousness of
membership" .23
Caste as a structural phenomenon is considered as a part of the general theory
of social stratification. The principle of status summation seems to be the structural
feature of caste stratification. Opposition, segmentation and hierarchy are universal
criteria of social stratification and are expressed in different cultural idioms including
caste. 24 Thus, Caste stratifies Indian society into a number of segments. This
stratification makes the distribution of rights and privileges among the people
unequal. The ability to acquire equal rights and privileges is restrained by caste
Emile Senart, Caste in India: The Facts and the System, Reprint. (New Delhi:Ess. Ess.Publications,
1975), p.152.
22
Dipankar Gupta as quoted in Suvira Jaiswal, Caste (New Delhi: Manohar, 1998), p.2.
23 Andre Beteille, Essays in Social Structure and Stratification (New York: Asia Publishing House.
1969), p.254.
24
K.L. Sharma, Caste and Class in India: Some Conceptual Problems in Sociological
Bulletin, Vol.33, No.1&2, 1986.
2!
8
system. As a result, inequality comes into existence. It also ranks the status of people
and forms a hierarchy. 25
The contemporary Indian society is an agglomeration of numerous castes.
The different caste populations have extensive geographical overlap and members of
several castes generally constitute the complex society. It largely determines the
function, status, opportunities and the limitations for an individual. 26 Caste
differences determine the differences in modes of domestic life, social life and
cultural patterns of the people.
Class
Social class in its contemporary understanding was primarily defined by
European scholars. At the time of Industrial Revolution, older mystiques that
legitimatized the stratification, decayed and the antagonism between rich and poor
became obvious. Consequently the social classes became sharply antagonistic.
During this period, stratification is discussed in terms , of inequality rather than of
opposing social classes. The word 'class' meaning economic and social position of
groups of people is of recent origin. Its present day use dates from the mid 18th
century. Its roots are from the Latin word classis, referring to the six orders the
Romans were divided into for the purposes of taxation. The concept of class fitted in
the pattern of changes brought about by industrial society. It gained wide currency
25
26
G. Karunanithi, op. cit., p.22.
A.R. Desai, Rural Sociology in India, Reprint (Bombay:Popular Prakashan,1992), pp.38-39.
with early industrialization in the first half of the 19th century.
27 In many areas of
stratification, the definition of strata is likely to be different and more inclusive than
that of class.
In class analysis, there is widespread agreement as to what classes are in
broad terms. In it, classes are considered as sets of structural positions. Breen and
David are of the opinion that these structural positions are defined by social
relationships within markets, especially within labour markets and within firms. For
them, the importance of class stems from its ability of linking individuals and
households to the economic order of production
.28
Richard Centers goes a step ahead
and considers class as a man's part of ego, a feeling on his part of belongingness to
something. 29 However, the term social class in its general sense means any division
or portion of a population marked off from the rest by different criteria such as
income, occupation, education, prestige and status
.30
Such considerations over class
would of help to understand the importance of class as well as opens up a starting
point for class analysis.
There are several ways in which class is understood in sociological literature.
The usage of this term in different ways facilitates the emergence of various
theoretical perspectives. Almost all forms of class analysis are rooted firmly in the
sphere of production relations. Especially, in the industrial setup, class positions are
Jeremy Seabrook, Class, Caste and Hierarchies (New Delhi :Rawat Publications,2005),pp. 10-17.
Richard Breen and David Rottman, Class Analysis and Class Theory in Sociology, Vol.29,
No.3,1995, p.456.
29 Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton: Princeton University press,
1949),p.27.
30
G. Karunanithi, op. cit., p.25.
27
28
10
allocated on the basis of occupational title, location within the organizational
hierarchies of paid work, or some other such attributes pertaining to employment.
31
Karl Marx asa prime social thinker considers class in this respect. He uses
the dialectical method in analyzing class. The term 'dialectic', as originally used in
Greek, meant the process of getting at the truth through a debate carried on by
opposing sides. Marx's dialectical method is direct opposite of that of Hegal. For
Marx, ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and
translated into fonns of thought. 32 A dialectical relation is a relation of existential
independence between instances in which some instances result in the formation of
other instances in which the latter instances are the conditions of the former's
reproduction or supersession. In this process, there is a constant movement and
change from a potential to a realized state and from a state of contradiction to one of
correspondence and vice versa. Dialectics is a view of reality which considers
phenomena as tied by a dialectical relation.
33
Marx used the term class in his conception of 'class struggle' to signify the
contradictions inherent between the principal classes in different historical epochs.
34
According to him, history is divided into several periods like ancient civilization,
feudalism and capitalism. Each of these periods is characterized by a predominant
Gordon Marshall, et.al ., Social Class and Underclass in Britain and the USA in British Journal
of Sociology, Vol.47, No.1, 1996, P. 22.
32
K. Parimal Kar, Sociology (Calcutta: Central Educational Enterprises, 1990), p.353.
Guglielmo Carchedi, Class Analysis and Social Research (New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd.,
1987), p.73.
Dipankar Gupta, Social Stratification, ed. (New Delhi: Oxford university Press, 1998). pp.227228.
I
mode of production. Based on it, a class structure consisting of a ruling and an
oppressed class is formed. The struggle between these classes determines social
relations at that period. The ruling class owns or controls the means or instruments of
production along with the moral and intellectual life of people. For Marx, Law and
government, art and literature, science and philosophy, all serve more or less the
interests of the ruling class. 35 For him "the history of all hitherto existing society is
the history of class struggles". 36
Marx believes that in every society the class that dominates economically
also rules politically, and that the state would also operate in the interests of the class
which controls major forms of wealth and property in society. 37 He uses economic
approach to the study of class phenomena and tries to convince with a great show of
reasoning that any social phenomenon is primarily determined by economic forces.
He maintains that persons who perform the same function in the organization of
production belong to one social class. 38 A clear-cut class distinction in terms of class
dichotomy and social classes are not coherently exposed in his writings as his
writings are voluminous39.
From the Marxian view of class, the fundamental class division is between
the buyers and sellers of labour power.
40
He divides the stratification structure into
Reinhard Bendix and S.M Lipset, Class, Status and Power, ed. (London:Routledge & Keganpaul
Ltd., 1974), p.6.
36
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume: 1, trans. B.Fowkes, (Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1976), p.482.
Paul Blumberg, The Impact of Social Class (New York:Thomas Y Crowell Company, 1972), p.1 1.
38 Y.P. Chhibbar, From Caste to Class (New Delhi: Associate Publishing House, 1968), p.9.
Reinhard Bendix and S.M Lipset, op. cit., p.7.
40
Alan Hunt, Class and Class Structure, ed. (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1977), pp.61.
12
two great classes; the bourgeoisies (capitalists) and the Proletariats (working class).
41
The former is viewed as the oppressing class and the latter is viewed as an
oppressed class. Marx asserts that the development of these classes is closely
associated with-a -series of revolutions in the modes of productions 4 . He conceives
that the society as a whole is splitting into two hostile camps; two great classes
directly facing each other: Bourgeoisies and Proletariats.
Bourgeoisies are the owners of capital and proletariats are those who have
nothing but their labour power to sell. It is the objective of the former to make profit
out of the surplus value produced by the latter. 43 Bourgeoisies are the class of great
capitalists who are almost exclusively in possession of all means of consumption,
raw materials and instruments necessary for production. They are also the
economically dominant class which also controls the state apparatus and cultural
production. 44 The modern bourgeoisie is a product of a long course of development
of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and exchange.
On the other hand, proletariats are the working class people who are
oppressed by the bourgeoisie.45 By proletariats, Marx means the class of modern
wage labourers who do not have means of production of their own, and are reduced
to selling their labour power in order to live.
41
46
They are the working class whose
Beeghley Leonard,The Structure of Social Stratification (Boston: Allyn and Bacon,1989),p.5
&50.
42
Patrick Joyce, Class (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp.21-30.
u Jeremy Seabrook, op. cit., p.13.
Tom Bottomore, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Reprint. (New Delhi: Maya Blackwell
Worldview Publications, 2000), p.143.
Jeremy Seabrook, op. cit., p.16.
46
Patric Joyce ,op. cit., p.21.
13
labour produces all wealth. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx outlines the process
of the formation of proletariats as
They go through various stages of development. With its birth begins
its struggle with bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual
laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one
trade, in one locality..... But with the development of industry the proletariats
not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in reater masses, its
strength grows... the workers begin to form combinations.4
Marx reiterates that the proletariats are exploited by the bourgeoisie as the
latter receive the surplus portion of the wealth produced by the former without giving
anything in return. 48 Receiving something for nothing warrants Marx to coin the term
'exploitation'. In capitalism, exploitation is accompanied by certain other social
process such as private property in terms of production and modes of accounting.49
As such, Marx saw that the forces of capitalism reinforce exploitation of the workers
by the capitalists.
Marx notes that with the advent of industrialization, groups of workers unite
together to form a definite class group against the capitalists. Though the workers are
already a class against capitalist, they are not united or a class-for-itself. The interest
it defends becomes class interest and the struggle of a class against another class is a
political struggle.
50
For Marx, classes are of two principal background categories;
'Class-in-itself and 'Class-for-itself'. A 'class-in-itself is an objective category.
48
Karl Marx as quoted in Tom Bottomore, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, op.cit., pp.586-586.
Resnick Stephen and Richard Wolff, The Point and Purpose of Marx's Notion of Class in
Rethinking Marxism, Vol.17, No. 1, 2005, p.34.
Resnick Stephen and Richard Wolff, The Categories of Class Analysis and the Soviet
Experience in Rethinking Marxism, Vol. 17, No. 4,2005, p.562.
° Reinhard Bendix and S.M Lipset, op. cit., p.9.
14
Though workers are united by their broad social and economic ties, they are
objectively against capitalists. But they remain unaware of their antagonistic
relationship with them. A 'Class-for-itself is a class in which the members are aware
of their antagonistic relationship with the capitalists and thereby develop a class
interest and action necessary to defend their class interests . 51 To Marx, a class must
fulfill both these conditions. In other wards, a 'class-in-itself would be a
precondition to form a 'class-for-itself
•52 In the Marxist phraseology, for a collective
class action, 'class-in-itself must be transformed into 'class-for-itself. 53 The
combination of these two components creates class consciousness among the
workers.54
Class consciousness is in the general sense, a fundamental requirement in
which the members of a particular class share attributes, interests and economic
status with other members of the same class. Thus, a member of a class must have
some level of consciousness that he is a member of that particular class.
55 In Marxian
view, a man is said to be class conscious when he is (i) rationally aware of his class
interest and identifies with them; (ii) aware of other class interests and rejects them
as illegitimate (iii) use collective political means to realize his class interest. 56 Class
consciousness is viewed as an essential requirement for the proletariats to organize
Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), pp. 159-160.
G.Karunanithi, op. cit., p.26.
John H Goldthrope, Comment on Grusky and Weeden's Research Agenda on Class in ACTA
Sociologica, Vol.45, 2002, p.214.
G. Karunanithi, op.cit., p.26.
Wegren K.Stephan, et al. , Beyond Stratification: The Emerging Class Structure in Rural
Russia in Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol.6 , No.3, July 2006, p.386.
6
G.Karunanithi., op.cit., pp.26-27.
2
15
themselves. 'Class conscious proletariats' refers to a fully politicalized 'class-foritself in the context of conflict.
57
Middle class in India is the most pplymQrphous in the world by its diversity
in terms of language, religion and caste. 58 The middle class for Marx is not the
bourgeoisie. Marx used this term more in the sense of 'petty bourgeoisie' to
designate the class or strata between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. He also
mentions the increasing size of the middle class as an important feature of the
development of capitalism. For Marx, middle class is a strata consisting of shop
keepers, small producers, professionals, technical workers etc. 59 It means that, in the
Marxian sense, none of the above categories own means of production.
Marx stresses on the importance of subjective class awareness for economic
and political struggle. He believes that the industrial workers would realize their
class interests against the capitalists in the course of time. This realization, to Marx,
is an indispensable element in the development of a social class.
60
He also believes
that at one stage, an overwhelming majority of persons in capitalist societies would
be reduced to wage labour. At the height of the class war a violent revolution breaks
out which destroys the structure of capitalist society. This revolution is most likely to
occur at the peak of an economic crisis.
N.Partha Mukherji and Manabendu Chattopadhyay, Agrarian Structure, Proletarianization and
Social Mobilization in Sociological Bulletin, Vol.30, No.2, September 1981, p.140.
58 Andre Beteille, The Indian Middle Classes in Times of India, February, 2000, p.5.
Tom Bottamore, A Dictionary..., op. cit., p.378.
60
Reinhard Bendix and S.M Lipset, Class, Status... op. cit., pp-10-11.
16
For Marx, this revolution is violent but does not necessarily involve killings
of the bourgeoisie because the property is wrested from them. The bourgeoisie will
61
cease to have power and will be transformed into the ranks of the proletariat. At
this stage, the private' ownership of the means-of production would , be abolished and
the majority ruling class of proletariats would establish a classless society.
62 Marx
thus believes in the fall of bourgeoisie and the rise of proletariats.
Thus, Marxian theory of class has given an analytical framework for the
analysis of class in industry in terms of production relations. He maintains class
dichotomy i.e., bourgeoisie and proletariats. Bourgeoisie are the owners of the means
of production and proletariat, the mere wage laborers. In the early Industrial India,
the laborers worked under the surveillance of their employers, who in turn also were
the owners. Thus this theory has relevance as it can be easily fitted into the early
industrial situation of India. Now the situation has been changed owing to the
transformations in the organization of work. It created a category of middle
management in the industry.
It is also necessary to look at the class structure from the point of view of
status and power besides from the point of view of production relations. Class can
also be explained in terms of status and power. In India, the influence of caste system
on class also warrants the inevitability of other approaches towards class. Max
M.Francis Abraham, Modern Sociological Theory (Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1982),
p.1!7.
62 Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (New York: International
Publishers, 1932). pp. 18-20.
61
17
Weber's multidimensional analysis of society embracing class, status and party is
also worth in this regard to explain class in India.
Weber agrees with Marx that people's location in society produces distinct
interests, values, and behavior. He holds the view that the rich people have great
political power in modem societies due to their ownership of capital 63 . But, his
conception of stratification is different from that of Marx. Though Marx and Weber
agree on the description and explanation of capitalism, they disagree on how to
evaluate it.64 Weber' s conception of capitalism is different from that of Marx. To
Weber, under capitalism, the pursuit of profit by the bourgeoisie is the realization of
protestant ethic.
65 But, to Marx, it is exploitation through surplus labour.
Weber refers distribution of power as an essential matter of social
stratification. Power is the nucleus of the Weberian theory of stratification.
66
According to him, power "...is the chance of man or a number of men to realize their
own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are
participating in the action".
67 He further elaborates that the economically conditioned
power is not identical with power as such. On the contrary, the emergence of
economic power may also be the consequence of power existing on other grounds.
The striving for power is also conditioned by the social honor it entails.
Leonard Beeghley, The Structure of Social Stratification, op. cit., p.6.
Hira Singh, Caste, Class and Peasant Agency in Subaltern Studies Discourse in The Journal
of Peasant Studies, Vol.30, No. 1, October 2002, p.112.
65 RaymondMurphy, Social Closure (New York: Clarendon Press Oxford, 1988), pp.5-7.
66
G.Karunanithi, op.cit., p.31.
67 Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Trans. H.H.Gerth and Mills, ed. (London:
Routledge & Keganpaul, 1977), p.181.
63
64
18
According to Weber, 'classes', 'status groups' and 'parties' are phenomena
of the distribution of power within a community. They are independent of one
another although they may be related to one another. He states that the bases of
classes, status groups and parties are economic order, social order and legal order
respectively. They are related to each other.
The economic order, the base of classes for Weber, is the way in which
economic goods and services are distributed and used
.68 He
thinks that the divisions
in society based on economically determined power are classes. For Weber, the
factor that creates class is economic interests and indeed those interests involve in
the existence of the market.
The main aim of Weber is to get away from a one-sided judgment of the
social position of individuals and groups exclusively from the viewpoint of their
material, economic condition and to reach at least a two-dimensional standpoint by
acknowledging a view in which lifestyle and social estimation (status group) are also
having categorical importance .69 Therefore, he adds the concept of status groups in
the conception of stratification. In contrast to classes, status groups are communities.
It is derived out of the fate of men determined by a specific, positive or negative
social estimation of honor .70 He also believes that the class distinctions are linked in
varied ways with status distinctions.
Max Weber as quoted in Reinhard Bendix and S. M.Lipset, op.cit., p.21.
Dirk Kasler, Max Weber: An Introduction to his Life and Work, Trans. (Munich: The
University of Chicago Press, 1979), p.168.
70 Max Weber, Class, Status..., as quoted in Reinhard Bendix and S.M. Lipset, op. cit., p.24.
68
69
19
According to Weber, class situation is the typical chance for supply of goods,
external living conditions, and personal life experiences. This chance is determined
by the amount and kind of power, or lack of power to acquire income in a given
economic order.' Weber regards property too as a crueial factor for determining
class situation. He maintains that 'property' and 'lack of property' are the basic
categories of all class situations. 72
As the market is the decisive moment which presents common conditions for
individual's fate of class situation, for Weber, 'market situation' is the determinant
of 'class situation'. In this sense, 'class situation' is ultimately 'market situation'. He
further notes that, those men whose fate is not determined by the chance of using
goods and services for themselves in the market, e.g., slaves are not considered as a
class, they are rather a 'status group'. 73 The term class thus refers to any group of
people found in the same 'class situation'.
Weber contends that the Marxian model of class based on economic factor is
inadequate to explain the complexity of stratification. He also rejects the Marxian
contention that the social and political dimensions of power are ultimately dependent
on economic dimensions. Both the Marxian and Non-Marxian sociologists consider
Marx and Weber were opponents. For non-Marxists, the significance of Weber's
work lies in an attempt to refute Marx. Marxists for their part have labeled Weber's
71
Ibid., p.21.
Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Trans. Gerth,H.H. and Mills, op.cit., p.182.
Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Trans, H.H.Gerth and Mills, op-cit., p.183.
72
20
work as the bourgeoisie reaction to Marx.
74
The issue of the relationship between
Marx and Weber is usually examined in terms of Marx's influence on Weber and
Weber's reaction to Marx. Some other scholars including Dahrendorf, Erick Olin
Wright and E.P. Thompson are also some among the scholars who have attempted to
explain class.
Dahrendorf contends that society has to be visualized in terms of the
'coercion' theory of social structure. He considers social change and social conflict
to be omnipresent. According to him, every society is based on the coercion of some
of its members by others.
75 He uses the world 'conflict groups' instead of classes.
These groups are labeled as social classes in which one group is coerced and another
one is coercive. 76 For him, social conflict would arise systematically among groups
which differ with respect to authority they enjoy over others.
He explains authority as a kind of legitimate power attached to social
position. It is legitimate in the sense that it is limited by social norms and supported
by social sanctions. A group of people with power dominates and gives orders and
obtains what they want from others .7' As such, Dahrendorf emphasizes that authority
rather than naked power attained by the ownership of the means of production is a
fundamental characteristic of the structure of stratification in modern societies. He
explains class almost in terms of conflict.
76
Raymond Murphy, Social Closure, op. cit., p.5.
Ralph Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1959), pp. 236-237.
bid., p. 74.
G.Karunanithi, op. cit., P.34.
21
Thus, Dahrendorf's analysis of class is also an important tool in the analysis
of class in industry. As mentioned, he uses the word 'conflict groups' instead of
classes. One group is coercive and another is coerced. Nowadays, such domination
and subjugations are found in all- work groups in -industry. Therefore, class can also
be analyzed in terms of conflict groups (power group and powerless group) in
industry. Power groups in the industrial organization consist of the top executives
like chairman, managers and other employees occupying various positions because
they always safeguard the interests of the management. On the other hand, the
powerless group includes workers who are subservient to the rules formulated by the
management.
Erick Olin Wright finds three kinds of locations within a class structure. They
are (i) basic class locations (ii) contradictory locations within a mode of production
and (iii) contradictory locations between modes of production. Basic class locations
are defined by a complete polarization within the social relationship of production.
Bourgeoisie and proletariats represent it. The second category is one in which such a
complete polarization is absent. For example, managers, who dominate over the
workers and are dominated by the bourgeoisie. The third category is the result of
interpenetration of modes of production. i.e., 'petty bourgeoisie' in the simple
commodity production come under this category. 78 For Wright, the contradictory
locations are not literally between classes. But they rather represent locations which
are simultaneously within more than one class.
78
Erick Olin Wright, et.al ., The American Class Structure in American Sociological Review,
Vol.47, No. 6, 1982, pp.709-710.
ON
Wright breaks down class dichotomy into four-class model. They are (i)
employing class (ii) middle class (iii) working class and (iv) homemakers.
Accordingly, employing class is a class in which its members are employers of nondomestic workers or self employed: For him, an -employee belongs to the middle
class when his job was as a manager, professional or responsible for either a decision
making or supervisory task at work. The working class includes employed nonmanagerial and non-professional workers who have no responsibility for decision
making and supervision. For Wright, the Class of homemakers is not at all an
employed worker.
79
He considers income and education as not the defining
characteristics of class.80
E.P.Thompson argues that the social and cultural factors are as important as
the economic and political factors in the making of a class. He strongly criticizes the
narrow conception that economic factor plays a determinant role in the making of
social relations in the capitalist mode of production. 8 ' He rejects the notion of
economic determinism. He holds that class does not develop in a capitalist society
over a period of time in the process of production. Instead, he views class as a
historical phenomenon and a historical relationship. People are born or enter
involuntarily into the relationship in the process of production.
80
Erick Olin Wright. Classes (London: Verso, 1985), pp. 12-30.
Erick Olin Wright, Interrogating Inequality: Essays on Class Analysis, Socialism and
Marxism (London: Verso, 1994), p.63.
E.P. Thompson, Eighteenth Century English Society: Class Struggle without Class? in Social
History, Vol.3, 1978, p.149.
23
He underlines that the common experience of people is important in the
formation of class and class consciousness. Class happens when some men as a
result of common experiences feel and articulate the identity of their interests as
between themselves and as against other men whose interests are different from
theirs. Thompson points out that class in the full sense exists only when there is class
consciousness. 82 Class consciousness for him is the way in which these experiences
are handled is cultural terms, embodied in traditions, value systems, ideas and
institutional form.
He argues that people experience exploitation, identify antagonistic interests,
commence to struggle around these issues and in the process of struggling discover
themselves as a particular class. 83 Thus Thompson suggests that class is a social and
cultural formation and it plays its part in its own making.
Caste-Class Relationship
The relationship between caste and class is always fascinating scholars
working on social stratification. The question whether it is caste or class that
constitutes the primary level of reality in Indian society has been one of the major
concerns of the scholars. However, the most representative and lucid defense of
castes as primordial reality has come from Louis Dumont. On the other hand, the
class approach has flourished in the writing of Karl Marx.
82
83
E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (England: 1980), p.8.
Ibid.,pp.11-12.
24
There are a number of ideas with regard to the nature of caste and class in
India. They are i. caste and class are polar opposites ii. caste is being replaced by
class iii. caste is a rural phenomenon, whereas class is found in urban industrial
settings iv. caste is an ascriptive system and-class is based-on achievement principle
and v. caste is a closed system and does not permit mobility for its members,
whereas class is an open system and allows mobility for its members.
84
It is generally accepted that caste and class are different forms of social
stratification. At the same time, it is found that both caste and class system may
coexist in the same society particularly in India. Therefore, the relationship between
caste and class becomes very important. According to Victor S.D'souza, studies on
social stratification consider the relationship between caste and class in any one of
the following two ways. They are:
1. by treating caste and class as qualitatively distinct forms of social
stratification so that class system may operate within each caste group. But
the two systems cannot cut across each other, and
2. by regarding caste system as a limiting case of the class system.
85
There are three major views on caste—class relationships in India. D'souza
observes that classes are not found as a system of stratification in the same way as
castes are rooted in Indian society. He is of the opinion that class is replacing caste
in Sociological Bulletin,
K.L. Sharma, Caste and Class in India: Some Conseptual Problems
Vol.33, No. 1&2,1984, pp. 1-28.
85 S.Victor D'souza, Caste and Class: A Reinterpretation as quoted in K.L. Sharma, Social
Inequality in India, (Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 1999), p.235.
84
25
and the individual is replacing the group. 86 Another kind of flourishing opinion on
caste-class relationship is that of Yogendra Singh. He is of the opinion that
traditional systems of caste and kinship undergo adaptive transformations without
completely being diffracted into• classes or- corporate groups. Thus class segments
operate within the frame of caste categories with a new sense of identity.
87
The third kind of opinion on caste-class relationship is that of Bettilie. He
opines that caste cannot be deduced to class and on the other hand, one cannot
artificially separate and compartmentalize the two structures. He believes that caste
in India is slowly giving way to class. He argues precisely that the Indian
Sociologists and Anthropologists exaggerate the importance of caste system and
thereby neglecting other more 'material' aspects of Indian society.
supports this view in his studies.
89
88 Anil Bhatt also
A synthesis of various views on caste-class
relationship would provide a research problem.
However, class in India has existed along with caste and power. Neither the
'caste alone' nor the 'class alone' perspective can help the proper understanding of
Indian society. 90 The emergence of the working class also facilitates the co-existence
of caste and class. Though caste has not found full expression in the industrial scene,
it has not disappeared or even substantially weakened. It continues to exist in India
S.Victor D'souza, Social Inequalities and Development in India in Economic and Political
Weekly,Vot.1O, No. 19, 1975,p.35.
87
Yogendra Singh, Caste and Class: Some Aspects of Continuity and Change in Sociological
Bulletin, Vol.17, No.2, 1975, p. 337.
88
Andre Bettlie,. Caste, Class and Power (Berkeley: Cambridge University Press, 1971 ), pp. 185-225.
89
Anil Bhatt, Caste Class and Politics (Delhi:Manohar, 1975), pp. 198-199.
90
K.L. Sharma, Social Stratification and Mobility (Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 1994), p.65.
86
26
assuming new functions in accordance with changing social situations of
industrialization. 91
Industrialization is also viewed as a triggering force to dissolve caste by
class. Theories of industrial society claim that a high technology and industrial
economy have a profound effect on social structure and process. The process of
Industrialization, which accompanies urbanization and the spread of education
transform the principle of allocation of human resources from particularistic criterion
to universalistic one. This enables individuals to match their jobs according to their
talent and achievement. This is done primarily because of their educational
achievement and not of their social origin. 921t in turn facilitates the emergence of
class over caste. As such, industrialization replaces ascriptive form of social
selection by meritocratic forms of social selection. This also results in the decline of
importance associated with caste system.
Thus, industrialization is very much associated with caste-class relationship.
It is viewed both as a factor which negates caste and promotes class as well as a
factor which promotes both caste and class and its nexus. The main social effect of
industrialization in India is the emergence of middle class. However, Class, in
general and particularly in India is a complex construct which opens up difficult
methodological and conceptual debates. It is also influenced by vast social and
91
G.Karunanithi, op. cit., p.181.
Ishida Hiroshi, Industrialization, Class structure and Social Mobility in Post-war Japan in
British Journal of Sociology, Vol.52, No.4, Dec.2001, pp.579-582.
92
WA
regional diversity. 93 Classes in one form or another exist in all societies though the
people and researchers see it through various perspectives and conceptions.
Class in Industry
The term 'Industrial revolution' refers to the invention and the use of
machines to simplify and multiply production of things that conventionally exploited
natural resources and the human hands. The beginning of it is traced in England. It
was a revolution because it shifted the basis of production from men to machines.
Industrialization in the early days encouraged private enterprise as the
laissez-faire
policy of England encouraged it. Unchecked freedom for entrepreneurs led to
various problems like wages at subsistence levels, growth and perpetuation of slums,
corruption and many other human problems.
94
India did not make any notable progress at the early stages of
Industrialization. Nevertheless, she has been experiencing industrial growth since
1920s. In a similar way, Tamil Nadu, a State in India is developing in terms of
industrial growth since Independence. There were only 21 cotton mills, 8 sugar
factories and 4 jute mills in the so-called Madras Presidency. Especially, during the
1920s the textile industry including cotton and jute provided employment to the
largest number of workers than any other industry. This predominant position of
textile industry continued after Independence.
95
Emma Mawdsley, India's Middle Classes and the Environment in Development and Change,
Vol.3 1, No.1, 2004, p.87.
G. Karunanithi, op. cit., pp.1-2.
K. Venugopal Reddy, Class Colonialism and Nationalism (New Delhi : Mittal Publications,
2002), pp. 10-1 1.
28
Since Independence, India has been making a determined effort to
industrialize. India's modern industrial thrust has other aims also. She believes that
industries provide great employment opportunities for millions of people; they lead
them to better standards of life and prosperity. 96 The Industrial scene was dominated
by cotton textiles, jute manufactures and tea and sugar factories.
Industrialization in India has made the transition from a traditional way of
life to a modern way. Life in an industrialized society is greatly different from life in
a traditional society. 97 Theorists of industrial society like Inkles and Ken confirm
that the logic of industrialism transcends cultural barriers. As a result, industrialized
societies move rapidly away from traditions. 98 Modern industrialization is
epitomized by the factory system involving not just a division of labour, but also the
use of machines which would progressively appropriate the workers skills. The
process involves a new way of organizing work. It also facilitated a new kind of
relationship between the man and the machine. 99
In this scenario, industries bring together persons from different castes. In
terms of their relationship within the industry, they cannot observe their traditional
social norms relating to caste. Presumably industrial organizations provide the
development of work ethos in which the workers work together, dine together and
move freely with one another without inhibitions. Especially the caste inhibitions are
96
G. Karunanithi, op. cit., p.2.
I bid., p.6.
98
A. Inkeles, Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, Perception and Value, and
C.Kerr et.al . Industrialism and Industrial Man as quoted in G.Karunanithi, op cit., p.6.
M.N. Panini, Industrialization and Social Stratification in India in K.L. Sharma, Social
Stratification in India, ed. (Delhi: Monohar, 1986), p.256.
29
ignored though not completely suspended in the interaction among the workers.
Consequently the yawning gap between the high and low castes has been narrowed
down.
As a result of these changes taking place in the caste system, class
distinctions are gaining full swing in industries. In this context, it is significant to
refer to Marx. He opines that the modern industry dissolves the hereditary divisions
of labour. 100 He also envisages that the industrialization will generate forces that will
break down the caste barriers. He means that classes in the industrial era would
replace caste. It was in this sense that Marx regarded that the
bourgeois mode of
production would destroy traditions.' 01 At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that
scholars in contemporary times like Beteille,'° 2 Anil Bhatt'° 3 and D'souza'° 4 also
view that class distinctions emerge as a result of change taking place in caste system.
Weber also recognizes the revolutionary potential of capitalism. He is of the view
that in a caste society the forces of capitalism have to slow down. Hence, he is also
in line with Marx in this regard.
The main social effect of industrialization is the emergence of a class of
industrial workers. This working class has undergone a typical and common
'°° Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, On Colonialism (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1968), p.85.
101 T.B. Bottomore and M.Rubel, Karl Marx: Selected writings, ed. (Penguin books: 1961), p.146.
02
Andre Beteille, Caste Class and Power, op.cit., p.4.
03
Anil Bhatt, op. cit., pp.198-199.
04
S.Victor D'souza, Caste and Class: A Reinterpretation as quoted in K.L. Sharma, Social
Inequality in India, op.cit., p.12.
30
development that is set by the intrinsic nature of the industrializing process.
105
In
India, most of the industrial workers are brought from rural communities, in which
they have satisfactory status positions, supporting social ties and personalized work
regularity. But in the industrial setting, they have no status, little sense of personal
dignity, no independence and no customary work rights. Lipset and Zetterberg also
argue that when a society moved from pre-industrial stage to an 'industrial' stage, it
would experience sudden transformation of industrial and occupational structure. A
massive shift of population from the farming to the industrial sector is the result.
106
In the face of these new and alienating conditions of work, the workers are said to be
become insecure and discontented.
07
An advancing technology and economy continually re-pattern the
occupational structure. It increases the number of higher level occupational roles
which require relatively high standards of education and training. At the same time,
these jobs also command relatively high economic rewards and social status. 108 This
in turn resulted in the creation of division of labour inside the industry. It created
varieties of labor categories with their own peculiarities and credentials in the
industrial organizations. They are categorized in term of their education, status and
their role in the production process. The class relations in industry are promoted by
the interaction between various class categories in the industrial organizations.
Herbert Blumer, Early industrialization and the Labouring Class, reprint of the paper presented
at a meeting of American Sociological Society, 1959.
106
Lipset and Zetterberg, Social Mobility in Industrial Society as quoted in Ishida Hiroshi,
Industrialization, Class structure and Social Mobility in Postwar Japan in British Journal of
Sociology, Vol.52, No.4, Dec.2001, pp.579-604.
107
Herbert Blumer, op.cit.
108
John H. Goldthrope, Social Stratification in Industrial Society in Sociological Review, Vol.8,
105
1964, pp.97-139.
31
Industrialization results in one way or other, in the emergence of 'middle
class'. The 'middle class' mentioned by Marx is not a
bourgeoisie stratum, but rather
a combination of technical professions such as bureaucrats and clerical staff. But,
none of them own property. Thus, in the industrial setting, it is not relevant to regard
class merely in terms of propertied and non-propertied people. ' ()9 Instead it becomes
a criterion measured in terms of the relation people bear in the organization of
production.
The emergence of the categories such as managers and supervisors has also
been accommodated in the class scale. They are neither bourgeoisies nor proletariats.
They cannot be placed either with the owners of the means of production or with the
laborers. The reason is that they are controlled by the owners, whereas they in turn
control the labour force. Olin Wright regarded these categories as contradictory
locations within a mode of production.
The complexities in identifying class in industry warrant the insertion of
theories other than the Marxian one. That is the reason why Weber's discussion on
multi-dimensional structure embracing class, status and party has been cited. He
contends that Marxian model of class based on economic factor is inadequate to
explain the complexity of stratification. He notes that 'class situation' exists
whenever men are similarly situated by their relative control over goods and skill.
This control produces income, procures them other goods, gains them a social
109
G.Karunanithi, op cit., pp.30-31.
position and leads them to a certain style of life. This serves as an important point in
the analysis of class among the industrial workers in terms of their skill contribution
in the production process and life style thereof.
In industries, the workers undergo a lot of struggles to eke out their daily
work life. The owners who are largely motivated by the profits exploit the work of
workers for little wages. The workers also enjoy low status and experience
humiliation. They have to bow in front of the higher authorities for the getting of
rewards that they deserve for their work. Those who work in the same category
experience the same situation. These conditions create a common antagonism against
the owners and management in the course of time. This tends to develop a
consciousness. This is largely against the interests of owners and managers. E.P.
Thompson is in this line as he holds the view that class emergence is the creation of
identity resulting from common experience and feels it is different from one another
in the production process. Thus the laborers of various categories differed from one
another with respect to their relationship with the management and treatment
rendered in the production process. Thus, they become various classes in the
industry.
The analysis of the conception of class by Marx, Weber, Dahrendorf and
other scholars in this chapter reveals that class structure in industrial society can be
analyzed by using the appropriate theory in various suitable situations in industry.
For instance, Marxian conception of class is found to be worthy to analyze the
33
emergence of class consciousness and class action among the workers. Weberian
perspective is also quite useful to examine class in terms of status, especially in the
industrial situations in India where caste influence is also present. Dahrendorf's
'coercion' theory seems to be relevant to analyze the development of class in terms
of distribution of power among various occupational categories. The following
chapter on review of literature also presents various works that have analyzed class
using these theoretical frameworks.