Perceived Hierarchy with regard to the Caste System in India

This topic submitted by Melania Kostryk (Marvelmel@aol.com) at 3:52 pm on 5/4/01. Additions were last made on Wednesday, February 12, 2003. Section: Myers.

Introduction
According to evolutionary psychology, humans tend to order themselves hierarchically, granting power to those on top and allowing little upward mobility for those below. By looking at one of the world’s longest surviving social hierarchies, the caste system in India and an important feature of Hinduism, it is quite obvious that a person within this society has a certain role to play. How could this be if according to Wright, ‘No one is born to lead and no one is born to follow’? An explanation within India is that the caste system is closely linked to one’s belief in Hinduism. Since the caste system is a clearly defined example of a hierarchy within Indian society, I have studied some of the laws and explanations for this system and attempted to find parallels within our own society. However, because the two may not parallel exactly, I wish to find ways in which people within our own society perceive their interactions with others possibly of the same, lower and higher caste.
In order to understand the caste systems one must look at the dharma tradition in Hinduism which is used to refer both to the orderliness of human society and to each person’s duty to uphold that order through every action. The earliest Vedic text, the Rig-Veda gives a myth, which affirms this dharma tradition and concerns the sacrifice of a giant Parusha. The four varnas stated in the story of Parusha are social groups each to pursue traditional types of occupations. For example the Brahmins are priests and scholars, the Kshatriyas who are said to be warriors and rulers, the Vaishyas who pursue commerce and trade and the Shudras or serfs whose duty it is to serve and support the three higher groups. A fifth category falls outside the varnas system and consists of that known as “untouchables” or Dalits. Within the varnas, there are thousands of sub-castes, also called jatis. Jati means birth and is the proper name for caste. Unlike a Varna, a jati is geographically and linguistically limited and in most cases has the characteristics of a large kin group. (Kinsley, 88)
According to Kinsley, there are a few central assumptions for the caste system. First, it is assumed that rank and hierarchy are intrinsic to human relations. Second, rank is ascribed by birth and not by merit. Also, the rank of each individual in the present society is based on one’s own past actions and that ones’ future social role is being determined in this life according to one’s present actions. In addition the aim of social life is to learn and fulfill a given, ascribed social role that is necessary to the orderly functioning of society. (Kinsley, 88) These assumptions have assisted in the maintenance of this hierarchy.
The main justification for the caste system is the need for order. The world needs those who have a beneficial relationship with the gods who nourish the world. It also needs those who maintain civil order and administer justice. There is also a need for someone to supply goods and services and those who do laundry, and perform a variety of types of manual labor and specialized services. Closely linked to the different occupations is ritual purity and pollution. Derived from the fact that all body emissions are polluted, there is control over the allocation of specific jobs. For example, the untouchables (low ranking castes) are given duties like barbering, laundering and clearing human waste, so that the purity of the Brahman and other high castes is preserved by others performing there dirty work. Division of labor among castes is based on this ritual dimension. Louis Dumont (Homo Hierarchicus) claims there are two oppositions, which form the basis of caste. (Sharma, 34) First the opposition between pure and impure, which he equates with the opposition between Brahmin and untouchable, is the justification for explaining Hindus preoccupation with pollution. The legacy of Dumont's theory is an argument against seeing the caste system as a social stratification from a western individualistic point of view because in India, traditional holistic values prevail. In Homo Hierarchicus, Dumont argues that “hierarchy” here means much more than simply inequality of super ordination but ‘the superiority of the pure’ demands that the pure and the impure be kept apart. It is a hierarchy of value, in which the ‘part’ can only be seen in relation to the encompassing whole, the entire structure.
That distinguishes Hindu caste from other structures which superficially resemble it is the subordination of power to status. The secular power of the king is subordinate in ideological terms to the ritual purity of the Brahmin. (Sharma, 3) However, Declan Quigley asks the question “is a theory of caste still possible?” He says the castes system is the product of a certain degree of centralization, which involves the organization of ritual and other services around the king and dominant lineage. The central institution is the monarchy, and not the Brahmin priesthood. (Sharma, 26)
When one studies this system and sees that there is prescribed role for everyone in society at birth, one may deem it unequal because one is simply supposed to accept the role to maintain order. One may ask is this system equal? Are some people ‘born to serve and others born to lead? After studying the caste system I began to wonder how similar is the society in which we live. Since, I have never read a book that states as clearly the order of our society I have never considered that there indeed may be certain resemblance’s in our own society. But as I think more critically I see that my role is to be a student, to graduate and to find a job of my interest and work hard at it. I wonder is the major I chose one in which only certain people in our society feel they can partake in. I believe that in our own society, magazines, newspapers and media portray or imply roles in which we should follow. The ingrained hierarchy in our own society is blurry but I do contest that certain aspects will parallel to the caste system in India.
When I read of this hierarchy in India I began to wonder, shouldn’t everyone in our society have an equal opportunity to succeed? Within our own society, schools are supposed to be equal but they are not, education can vary dramatically depending on the location. Discrimination against race exists in our own society. Andre Beteille has argued that in India there is an increasing distaste for the values of caste among the educated middle class, the institution itself does not appear to be in decline. Educated people look at the caste as inappropriate in a modern, democratic society. (Sharma, 36) And what do the uneducated think about the caste system?
One would assume that if the low castes were shown to reject the notion of ritual hierarchy then the thesis of the centrality of hierarchy in Hindu society falls apart. If however the untouchables can be shown to accept hierarchy in some sense or other, then the coherence of Hindu society remains. The Moral Animal states that if the acceptance of low status had evolved mainly as an ingredient of group success, success that trickles down and benefits even the lowly, you wouldn’t expect low-status animals to spend their time overturning the groups order. (244) In a study by Deschamps of the relation between identity and power in France, says that upper level groups see themselves as individuals rather than members of groups. He concluded that racial identity is more important to black people and gender identity more important to women. (Sharma, 16) Do low castes think about caste differently from the high castes? If caste is no longer to be privileged then you can ask the questions of who uses the language of cast to whom and when? When is purity emphasized rather than other notions about status, such as honor. (Sharma, 20) These questions are an attempt to understand the existence of the caste system.

Why do hierarchies exist? Looking at hierarchies from the evolutionary perspective. One may begin to wonder if inequality as Darwin suggested is a prerequisite for economic and political advancement. Both reciprocal altruism and status hierarchies evolved as an aid to the survival of individual genes, yet together they’re holding up the world. The caste system puts the order of society above the needs of the individual, but it rewards the individual with a secure place, a niche in society, that is ascribed at birth. A justification within the Moral Animal for the prescribed status of individuals with in the caste system is that human beings are designed to assess their social environment. They will learn what has to be done to impress people and what to avoid for fear of shame. People want to inspire respect and pride, not disdain. This may explain why some people accept their place in society. Within Hinduism Karma and Samsara insure that one is born into a situation appropriate to one’s tendency and to try and act like another is not customary.
There is a widespread idea that caste is exclusive to Hinduism. However, I hypothesize certain aspects of this system exist in our own American society.

Materials and Methods

My experimental design included creating a survey with 8 questions attempting to discover the perceived hierarchy in our own society.

Question 1 was asked to determine the most common aspect that affects one’s communication with another person the most?
Question 2 sought to determine what influences one’s choice in choosing their field of study. In an attempt to find out if their future was already prescribed by certain encounters or something was influenced by experiences.
Question 3 sought to determine the perceived hierarchy in our society by asking, which is the most highly regarded profession based on the term respect.
Question 4 was asked to determine if being educated and young (na•ve) would allow for a person to fight for their own human rights if say something appeared unjust.
Question 5 was posed to understand whom people find the most awe-inspiring?
Question 6 sought to determine if people ascribe their place in society to birth or merit.
Question 7 will allow me to determine the proportion of males/females taking the test and make comparisons between the two.
Question 8 is a general question asking the interviewee what their knowledge of the caste system in India is.
My data analysis will include calculating the responses for the non open-ended questions from each gender separately. The date will be entered into the Microsoft Excel program to make visible line graphs, bar graphs and circle thing. These will assist me in comparing and determine what is the perceived hierarchy here at Miami University.
I will pass out 100 surveys at the Bell Tower place over the course of a 3-day period just because I would feel like a nuisance attempting to pass out all 100 surveys at the same time interval. I will go on a MTW. During the hours of 11-11:30 and 4-4:30 on Monday and Wednesday from 5-6 on Tuesday. The surveys will be given to anyone who appears to have time to spare; I am not concerned about the age and actual position of the test taker.

The approach to my test appear like this:

Step 1: Practice survey, 30 passed out on Friday afternoon at Bell tower
Step 2: Over weekend determine what if any inconsistencies existed in the Survey, on Sunday rewrite the survey.
Step 3: Pass out 100 of the revised survey. (appendix)
Step 4: Sit and tally by hand the rankings and responses to the questions by a dash system.
Step 5: Enter data into Microsoft Excel and make more visual presentations of the results.
Step 6: Analyze data and continue on with the Results section of the final project.

Results

The question posed for this graph is:
1. When interacting with another person, which ONE of the following affects your communication?
___Gender ___Socio-economic status ___Culture ___Cleanliness ___Religion

This line graph suggests the gender-affected communication the most for both the M+F. Cleanliness follows as the second most important for males and females.
The underlying reason interactions in India’s caste system are based on is the purity and pollution aspect. The fact that woman are more polluted because of their menstrual cycle they are deemed inferior to men in India, this would in turn affect one’s communication. It appears that cleanliness and gender affected the communication of those here at Miami University the most. The reason for the other choices may be attributed to culture because each culture has their own set of beliefs and values, which typically make communication difficult. Within India High castes may be poor and low castes may be rich people may not think these aspects affect communication as much. However, they are simply not the priority. And because it is difficult to know another’s religion simply by appearance this will not affect communication.

The question posed for graph 2 is
2. Which of the following factors have influenced your field of study? Please only pick TWO.
___Fate ___Parents career ___Experience ___Friends ___Faith ___Teacher/counselor

The data here suggests that male’s chose experience and fate the most. For females experience and teachers were chosen the most.
Because Darwin said we are all capable of reaching high status because we are flexible and because the caste system suggests that we are given an ascribed role at birth I believe the justification for experience lies in the fact that we are all flexible, it just depends on our environment. Depending on our parents success and the type of teachers we encounter their influence may be just as great as all the experiences. However, fate, a mindset that something is meant to happen reminds me of the thinking in the caste system, which states everyone has an ascribed role at birth. Faith was chosen less frequently, however one’s belief in something supernatural and beliefs that will come after death might influence someone’s selection of major.

The next graph represents the data from question 3:
Rank according to respectable from 1 to 10. Most respectable=1 Least respectable=10
___Military
___Teacher
___Janitor
___Doctor
___Waiter/waitress
___Prostitute
___Scientist
___Judge
___Social worker
___Priest/rabbi/minister

The rank for the following data was determined by combining the assigned rank:
1+2= 1st ranking, 3+4= 2nd ranking, 5+6= 3rd ranking, 7+8=4th ranking, and 9+10= 5th ranking.
This explains the discrepancy between the actually question and the bar graphs.

Doctor:
Males: 54% gave the doctor a #1 ranking,, 19% gave the doctor a #2 ranking, 22% gave the doctor a #3 ranking
Females: 60% gave the doctor a #1 ranking, 26% gave the doctor a#2 ranking,, 6% gave the doctor a #3 ranking.
Females gave 6% higher for #1 and 7% higher for #2. The males ranked the doctor 16% higher for #3.
This suggests the females ranked the doctor higher.

Priest:
Males: 40% gave the priest #2 ranking, 32% gave a #1 ranking
Females: 32% gave the priest a #3 ranking, 28% gave the priest a #1 ranking.
More males gave the priest a higher ranking.72% ranked the priest at 1 and 2 and only 52% of females ranked the priest at #1 and #2. The priest was never ranked a #5.

Teacher:
Males: 32% gave the teacher a #1 ranking, and gave both 29% to 2nd and 3rd ranking.
Females: 36% gave the teacher a #1 ranking , and gave both 26% to 2nd and 3rd ranking
The results show the difference between the 1st and 2nd for males is 3%
And for females is 10%. The teacher was never ranked a #5.

Military:
Males: 34% of males gave military a #1 ranking, and 27% gave a 2nd ranking.
Females: 26% gave a #2 ranking and 20% gave a #3 rank
9% more females gave # ranking, and the males ranked the military at #3 14% higher than females. The difference for #2 and #4 is only a difference of 1%. While once again the females ranked the military 8% higher for #5.
It appears that males gave a medium ranking for the military while the females ranking is more similar throughout.

Judge:
Males: 37% gave a #2 ranking while 34% gave a #3 ranking
Females: 40% gave a #3 ranking while28% gave a #2 ranking
The difference for the 3rd ranking is 6% while for the 2nd ranking is 5%.
The males ranked the judge higher.

Scientist
Males: 32% gave a #2 ranking, 24% gave a #3 ranking,
Females: 36% gave #2 ranking, 22% gave a #3 ranking
The females ranked 4% higher at #2 while the males ranked 10% higher at #1. the difference at #3 is only 2%.
This suggests the males ranked the Scientist higher.

Social Worker:
Males: 39% gave #4 ranking, 29% gave a #3 ranking followed by 20% giving a #1ranking
Females: 29% gave #3 ranking, 28% gave a ##2 ranking, followed by 24% giving a #1 ranking.
Note: the ranking for #5 for females should be 0%.
The difference for the #2 ranking was 9% the females ranked higher.
The difference for the #4 ranking was 10% the males ranking higher.
The females appear to be giving the social worker a higher ranking.

Waitress:
Males: 63% gave #4 ranking followed by 24% giving #5 ranking
Females: 79% gave #4 ranking followed by 10% giving #5 and 8% giving #2.
16% more females gave a #4 ranking. 14% more males gave #5 ranking.
6% more females gave #2 ranking while 5 % more males gave # 3 ranking.
Together this suggests the women ranked the waitress higher than the males.
The waitress was never ranked a #1.
Janitor:
Males:51% of males gave #5 ranking, , 34% gave #4 ranking
Females: 65% gave #5 ranking, 20% gave #4 ranking.
14% more males ranked the janitor at #4 while 14% more females ranked the janitor at #5.

Prostitute:
Males: 85% gave#5 ranking, 10% gave #1 rank
Females: 96% gave #5 ranking, 4% gave #1 rank
The prostitute was almost entirely ranked a #5, while 6% more males found the prostitute more respectable at #1

Observations from the line graph from above:
The doctor was ranked the highest at 1 and 2. AVG of 1.5
The Priest was ranked the highest at 1 and 5 AVG of 3
The scientist was ranked the highest at 3 and 4. AVG of 3.5
The teacher was ranked the highest at 1 and 7. AVG of 4
The judge was ranked the highest at 3 and 6. AVG of 4.5
The military was ranked the highest at 4 and 7. AVG of 5.5
The social worker was ranked highest at 7
The waitress at 8
The janitor at 9
The prostitute at 10

The following data corresponds to this question:
Who do you think would be the strongest advocate for their human rights?
Please rank 1 to 5. STRONGEST ADVOCATE=1 WEAKEST ADVOCATE=2
___ College student
___ Professor
___ Employee at corporate office
___ Food service employee
___ Recent College graduates

The graphs suggest that people tend to think the college student would fight for their rights first
.College student followed by professor received the highest % for #1 ranking.
The difference adding both M+F= 31%
The college student was ranked highest #1 at 84%, followed by #2 at 55% and decreasing at # 3 of 27%.
The professor was ranked 1, 2, 3 with little difference. 1=53% 2=57% 3=58%
The recent college grad was ranked highest at #3=79%, then at #2=68% and #1=29%
The employee at corporation was ranked highest at #4=79% followed by #5 at 70%. And the employee at corporation at #1=6%.
However, the employee at food service was ranked #1=24%, which is 5% lower than the college grad. Yet, the food service employee received the highest rank at #5=99% and at #4=59%.
Both employees were received 20% for #3.

The order suggests that the college student would be the strongest advocate for their human rights. The professor would follow because the difference was 24% higher than that of the recent college grad for #1. However the recent college grad had a higher % difference of 11% for #2 rank and 21% higher for rank #3. The employee at corp would be the next strongest advocate for their human rights because they recieved20% higher for rank#4 over the employee at food service and 60% higher at #4 over the recent college graduate. It appears that the food service employee would be the weakest advocate for their human rights because they received the highest % for rank #5 at 99%. Which is 29% higher than employee at corporation for the lowest rank

.
The following pie chart corresponds to:
To what do you attribute your place in society? (Please circle one)
Birth Merit

The difference here is only 1% between birth and merit. This suggests that almost half attribute to birth and almost half to merit. Note: both was not an option, yet 3 people made their own choice –Both--. This is a slight discrepancy.

Conclusion
The data that I collected allowed me to gather some interesting information about the perceived hierarchy here at Miami University. The data from question 1-dealing with communication and question 4-human rights gave consistent data. Communication seems to be influenced by gender and the cleanliness of the person. The order for the strongest advocate for human rights is in the order of 1st- college student, 2nd professor 3rd recent college graduate, and 4th employee at corporation and 5th food service employee. As with the middle class educated Indians who feel an increasing aversion for the caste system, they are aware of the restrictions that are enforced on the lower castes because of ritual purity. The more educated one is of the different aspects of society the more they will stand up for themselves. However in the case of the recent college graduate who steps into the working force, they typically accept the position they are given and abide by those above, (bosses, directors, principals etc.). The employee at corporation would put up less of a fight for his human rights because one probably accepts that status hierarchy exists and it would be difficult to fight. The food service employees I suppose suggest someone who has received little education.
My analysis and results from question 3 are fairly interesting however, I am afraid there could have been a better way to test this. Possibly posing separate questions about each profession, with tasks that they perform and trying to find what people find the most honorable, respectable, and/or important by having multiple choice options. The data from this question did parallel the caste system. The priest, doctor, scientist and teacher were all highly respectable which parallel the Brahmins who are the priests and scholars. The judge and military were ranked next corresponding with the Kshatriyas,who were the warriors and rulers. The social worker and waitress seem to parallel the Shudras/Vaishyas(serve, pursue commerce and trade). The janitor and prostitute would be at the lower end of the hierarchy because one cleans and the other is deemed dirty.
I was unable to make any sort of conclusion form question 5, which is, Have you ever thought, “if I meet so and so (dead or alive), I would be in awe?” Who would that person be? Please classify them by career.
There was too much inconsistency, if I were to re-write the survey I would attempt to veer away from open-ended questions.
The 6h question attempts to find what Miami University students attribute their place in society gave evidence that almost half attribute to birth and half attribute it to merit. Unlike the one assumption in the caste system that ones place in society is attributed to birth, here almost half attribute it to merit. I suppose the difference can be attributed to family background and socioeconomic status. Overall, my analysis was very interesting, and the one explanation that I find the most relevant for the attempt of understanding the caste system and our own hierarchy is:

“No one is born to lead and no one is born to follow. And to the extent that some people are born with a leg up in the race (as they surely are), that birthright probably lies at least as much in cultural as in genetic advantage. In any event, there is a good Darwinian reason to believe that everyone is born with the capacity to function as a high-status primate given a social setting conductive to his or her ascent. The whole point of the human brain is behavioral flexibility, and it would be very unlike natural selection, given that flexibility, to deny anyone a chance at the genetic payoffs of high status, should the opportunity arise.”

-The Moral Animal (243)

References:

Dumont, Louis. Homo Hierarchicus. Translated by Mark Sainsbury.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970

Fuller, C.J. The Camphor Flame. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Haberman, David L. and Leslie Stevenson. Ten Theories of Human Nature. New York: Oxford Universtiy Press, 1998.

Kinsley, David R. HINDUISM A Cultural Perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc., 1993.

Knott, Kim. Hindusim A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Sharma, Ursula and Mary Searle Chatterjee. Contextualising Caste: Post Dumontian Approaches. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994. (1-48)

Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Appendix:

1. When interacting with another person, which ONE of the following affects your communication?
___Gender ___Socio-economic status ___Culture ___Cleanliness ___Religion
2. Which of the following factors have influenced your field of study? Please only pick TWO.
___Fate ___Parents career ___Experience ___Friends ___Faith ___Teacher/counselor
3. Rank according to respectable from 1 to 10. Most respectable=1 Least respectable=10
___Military
___Teacher
___Janitor
___Doctor
___Waiter/waitress
___Prostitute
___Scientist
___Judge
___Social worker
___Priest/rabbi/minister
4. Who do you think would be the strongest advocate for their human rights?
Please rank 1 to 5. Strongest advocate=1 Weakest advocate=5
___ College student
___ Professor
___ Employee at corporate office
___ Food service employee
___ Recent College graduates
5. Have you ever thought, “if I meet so and so (dead or alive), I would be in awe?”
Who would that person be? Please classify them by career.
6. To what do you attribute your place in society? (Please circle one)
Birth Merit
7. What is your gender? Male Female
8. What is your knowledge of the Indian caste system?