A Note on the Comparative View of Caste

Clark Atlanta University

A Note on the Comparative View of CasteAuthor(s): R. A. SchermerhornSource: Phylon (1960-), Vol. 33, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1972), pp. 254-259Published by: Clark Atlanta UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/273525 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 13:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Clark Atlanta University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phylon (1960-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.153 on Fri, 9 May 2014 13:18:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cau

http://www.jstor.org/stable/273525?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


By R. A. SCHERMERHORN

A Note on the Comparative View of Caste

AN IMPORTANT DIVISION of opinion on the nature of caste has devel-

oped among a number of prominent authorities on the sociology and anthropology of India. On the one hand are writers like M. N. Srinivas, T. B. Bottomore, and E. R. Leach who focus on cultural features that make caste a distinctively Indian phenomenon.

Thus Srinivas declares, "The concept of pollution governs relations between different castes. This concept is absolutely fundamental to the caste system and along with the concepts of karma and dharma it con- tributes to make caste the unique institution it is."1 Bottomore makes his assertion even more specific by contending that "The only cases in which a caste system has been established outside Hindu India are those of non-Hindu groups in India (e.g., Muslims) or of the Hindu settlements outside India, notably in Ceylon."2 Likewise E. R. Leach, who lays less stress on cultural factors and insists on the priority of structural analysis, reaches the same conclusion by a different route, remarking, "Caste, in my view, denotes a particular species of structural organization indis- solubly linked with what Dumont has recently called Pan-Indian civilisa- tion.... Consequently I believe that those who apply the term to con- texts wholly remote from the Indian world invariably go astray."3 Briefly, he finds the essence of the caste system in the noncompetitive in- terdependence of the division of labor.

On the other hand, Gerald Berreman, though he accepts the distinction between the cultural and structural components of caste, contends that it is the former usually portrayed in the effort to depict the Indian system as especially unique. For purposes of cross-cultural comparison, however, he maintains that caste can be defined in much broader structural terms. This serves as his basis for comparing caste in India and the United States. His first attempt at such a definition came in 1960 when he wrote that for comparative purposes, "a caste system may be defined as a hierarchy of endogamous divisions in which membership is hereditary and permanent."4 He warns the reader that this is an ideal type constructed for the special purpose of cross-cultural comparison and asserts that it represents one end of a continuum where the caste systems of India and the southern United States would properly belong together.

1 M. N. Srinivas, Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India (Oxford, 1952), p. 28. 2T. B. Bottomore, Sociology, A Guide to Problems and Literature (London, 1962), p. 184. 8E. R. Leach (ed.), Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan (Cam-

bridge, England, 1960), p. 5. 4 Gerald D. Berreman, "Caste in India and the United States," American Journal of Sociology,

LXVI (September, 1960), quoted in Celia S. Heller (ed.), Structured Social Inequality (New York, 1969), p. 74.

254



A NOTE ON THE COMPARATIVE VIEW OF CASTE

By 1967 Berreman became dissatisfied with his earlier formulation and presented another in which the factor of endogamy is omitted. This appears to be a sequel to his later statements on hypergamy, hypogamy and indeed all cases where membership in one caste results from having par- ents of two different castes.5 This discussion leads him to give a still sim- pler definition, again for the identical purpose of comparative analysis. He defines "caste broadly as a hierarchy of groups in a society, membership in which is determined by birth. So defined, in structural and func- tional terms, it refers to a type of social stratification that appears in a variety of cultures, scattered widely in space and time."6

In spite of the highly instructive elaboration of the caste principle that makes Berreman's article imperative reading for all students of the subject, the author still restricts himself to an exposition of parallels between India and the southern United States, mentioning Japanese examples in the most fleeting way although the volume which includes his article is devoted primarily to the Japanese case. The reader might properly expect that if the pattern of caste defined by Berreman truly appeared "in a variety of cultures, scattered widely in space and time," that he would seize the opportunity to exemplify his concept from the Japanese culture which is the salient case in the volume to which he is making his contribution.

Better still, it would be far more persuasive had Berreman shown the relevance of the caste idea to several cultures, rather than confine himself-as he does-to no more than two societies like India and the United States. I am not in the least suggesting that Berreman is incapable of this feat. By stripping his definition down to a minimum of structural elements, he has doubtless facilitated a wide range of comparisons by reason of the simple fact that his common elements are so broadly conceived that they have staggeringly large denotations. To repeat, he defines "caste broadly as a hierarchy of groups in a society, membership in which is determined by birth." Period. This is widely inclusive enough to encompass the estate system of medieval Europe where a person be- longed to his stratum by birth. Many features Berreman finds paralleling each other in the United States and India are also characteristic of the es- state system, i.e., feelings of social superiority, paternalism and deference, non-commensality, economic exploitation, sex exploitation, resentment of position by many low in the scale, the liberal use of sanctions by those in upper positions to keep the lower in their place, and many more. At this level of constructed type, other more unique features of the estate system such as special legal definitions, broad division of labor and the identity of estates with political groups7 can be treated as socio-cultural and historical variations of secondary import if structural analysis is foremost,

Gerald D. Berreman, "Structure and Function of Caste Systems," in George De Vos and Hiroshi Wagatsuma (eds.), Japan's Invisible Race (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 279-80.

e Ibid., p. 275. 7 Bottomore, op. cit., p. 181.

255



PHYLON

as it is for Berreman. Provisionally it is possible to operate at this selected level of abstrac-

tion for a time and to reap certain advantages Berreman claims for it. Soon, however, disadvantages would be likely to show up; many are con- ceivable but four are worth mentioning.

The first is a semantic one. If, in order to make comparative studies, there is need for an ideal type of the kind that Berreman suggests, it seems a fair question to ask, why can not the terminology follow the idea? Why not speak of hereditary hierarchical groups instead of retain- ing the word caste? If we follow Berreman's example and cleave to caste then confusion surely appears in several ways. For caste has the historic connotations of purity, pollution, occupational specialization, and religious sanction, all of which must be dropped in the case of our new ideal type; thus in comparative studies it must be constantly explained that we are not using caste in its historical sense but have restricted its meaning for scientific purposes. When describing the "hereditary hierarchical" components of European medieval societies, we will have to explain that we are abstracting from the estate system in order to present a skeleton- ized structure. To our eventual dismay, however, we will find ourselves willy-nilly using both caste and estate to designate what we are talking about and insist that we mean the same thing. In the case of India, however, we would use but one term-caste-in two overlapping but different senses-one structural, the other historic and cultural. In the Indian context we would be speaking of the full-bodied socio-historic entity with its endogamy, restricted commensality, social avoidances, and religious rules that characterize the phenomenon. In the other context (medieval Europe) we would be speaking of a scientific construct "hereditary hierarchial groups" without the socio-cultural features just mentioned, but rather a totally different set of historical and cultural components, i.e., an estate system. To describe the European case, we would then be forced to utilize both the term caste and the term estate system as applicable, since the abstract elements of Berreman's definition ob- viously encompass essentials of both. In India, however, we would be restricted to but a single word, namely caste. The double meaning in one instance and the single meaning in the other would give rise to real peda- gogical difficulties.

Apart from the confusion over terminology, there is a second disadvan- tage more logical in character. The hierarchy of which Berreman speaks may be dichotomous or it may be plural, as he clearly recognizes when he states that the difference between India and the United States is in the "differences between a multiple and a dual castle hierarchy."8 The conse- quences for each hierarchy are so different from each other that to use the same term for both is to stretch any unity of meaning to the breaking point. To be specific: in a multiple hierarchy like India, the lower castes

8 Gerald D. Berreman, "Concomitants of Caste Organization," in De Vos, op. cit., p. 314.

256



A NOTE ON THE COMPARATIVE VIEW OF CASTE

want superiority rather than equality; that is, they want to move up in the system rather than to destroy the system. To do the latter would wreck what pretensions they have left because, while becoming equal with some higher castes, they would likewise find inferior castes equal to themselves. To destroy the multiple hierarchy would necessarily bring about the threat of equality with those regarded as inferiors. On the other hand, in the United States, where there is a dual hierarchy of blacks and whites, the former can well desire to abolish the system because they have nothing to lose and would therefore become equal with the upper group.

Does caste, then, have the same referent in the two cases? Berreman begins to waver on this point, acknowledging that, "With the American Negro it is difficult to distinguish between objections to the system and objections to the Negro's position in it, since the system involves only the Negroes vis-a-vis the whites. This makes comparison of attitudes in the two societies difficult, and it may constitute a real difference."9 This is as close as Berreman comes to admitting that his notion of caste has dif- ferential validity in the two types of hierarchy.

A third problem is Berreman's cavalier dismissal of a religious founda- tion for the phenomenon of caste. He is so eager to repudiate this that he allows himself to make inordinate claims that are implicitly contradicted by other authors in the same volume. Thus he declares, "The most fre- quently cited unique characteristic of caste in India is its religious and philosophical rationale. If this becomes requisite for caste organization, then caste exists only in the Hindu religion."10 This statement seems all the more incredible when it appears in a symposium where John Price shows in the first chapter the religious origins for ideas of pollution and pariah status in Korea where Hindu-Buddhist proscriptions against kill- ing of animals played a role, and in Japan where Buddhism was definitely influential.1' Likewise George De Vos, major contributor to the symposium, continually emphasizes the role of the supernatural to ac- count for the psychological element in caste. He contends that . . .

. . . It is in the appearance of types of endogamy related to sacred or ritual functions that one finds numerous instances in which social in- teraction tends toward the creation of both ritually elevated as well as ritually polluted groups. . . . Caste-type thinking, therefore, related to religious concepts of purity or impurity, tends to appear most often in reference to either extreme of a hierarchy. The word hierarchy itself implies a religious rather than a secular stratification of society.12

Fourth and finally, Berreman's portrayal of similarities between structured hierarchy in India and in the United States, while insightful and * Berreman, "Structure and Function," in De Vos, op. cit., p. 298. 0 Ibid., p. 295. John Price, "A History of the Outcaste: Untouchability in Japan," in De Vos, op. cit., pp. 9-10, 14. George De Vos, "Essential Elements of Caste: Psychological Determinants in Structural Theory," in De Vos, op. cit., pp. 338, 339.

257



PHYLON

valid up to a point, is at best a half-truth since it focusses purely on items of agreement. However, there are also striking differences such as occur when skin color acts as an instantaneous index of upper or lower position, as happens in the United States and South Africa without, however, occurring in India. In the former case racism acts as an obstruction to "passing" and upward mobility, while in the latter there is no such im- pediment. Had Berreman been able to convince the contributors to the aforementioned symposium of the similarity between racial stratification and caste, there would have been no need for them to entitle their volume on Nipponese caste Japan's Invisible Race, for such differences would hardly be noticed if Berreman's blanket category were adopted across the board. In fact the term race would lose most of its significance. Berreman, of course, recognizes that such differences exist but plays them down by referring blandly to variations in the "symbol of caste af- filiation," in one case, ancestry, in the other, skin color. Though their con- sequences are pictured as quite different, in the last analysis, his indica- tors are judged as having a "similar level of reliability for identifying caste members."l3

There are other differences, too, between racial stratification in the United States and caste in India, though Berreman omits them, presuma- bly as unimportant historical accidents. Yet it is surely not without im- portance that pollution is connected with occupation in India but with color in the United States; even though Berreman asserts that certain jobs have been monopolies of Negroes in the American South, he does not go so far as to say that the very occupations are polluted. Indeed, they could not have been so, for in times of severe depression like the 1930's, white men in the South were crowding into "nigger jobs" in great numbers, leaving multitudes of blacks in the ranks of the unemployed. An- other difference: caste in India is definitely legitimated by religion while in the United States, racial stratification was ambiguously legitimated and religious tradition was quoted both for and against its occurrence. Of course a chronological difference is also so obvious that it cannot be passed over: in India caste is ancient, probably not less than a thousand years old, but racial status in the United States is hardly three hundred years in duration-a mere parvenu in comparison. Structurally, too, there is a significant difference. In India the varna system not only has the ritually inferior and degraded castes at the bottom, but the ritually superior Brahmins elevated high above the masses at the top. The lowly degraded stratum is found in the dual race division of the United States but the upper elevated extreme is absent.

Thus there are important historical, cultural, and structural differences between the American and Indian stratification systems that overshadow the definitional similarity abstracted by Berreman. The final criterion for his scheme will be the test of time; and while the possibility certainly 8 Berreman, op. cit., pp. 302-03.

258



A NOTEI ON THE COMPARATIVE VIEW OF CASTE

exists that future comparisons could show some scientific gains on his basis, the probabilities, in view of the four difficulties just discussed, appear slight. In view of the unfortunate semantic choice, the variations in types of hierarchy posited, the arbitrary rejection of religious legitima- tion as an essential underpinning, and the too facile identification of caste with racial stratification, Berreman may well find that his tour de force of abstraction will prove sterile in comparative research.

In closing I would like to propose an alternative definition of caste which avoids at least some of the difficulties mentioned-that of an ex- clusive, hereditary social group with its hierarchical position in the social system legitimated by religious tradition. This rendering applies to the cases in Tibet, Korea and Japan described by Price, as well as the famil- iar pattern in India but does not denote racial systems growing out of slavery or colonialism. Caste on this basis is therefore an Asian phenomenon rather than a Pan-Indian one as Leach has asserted. However, future historical research could well establish Buddhist links between India and the other countries so that hypothesis about the Pan-Indian spread would be borne out. The one exception to this Asian phenomenon of caste is Na- del's case of the Beri Amer people in Africa,14 though the latter seems to be a product of simple conquest without a religious label for the ethnic strata involved. Should this and other examples from Africa come to light in greater numbers, the notion that caste is an Asian phenomenon will necessarily be modified. 14S. F. Nadel, "Caste and Government in Primitive Society," Journal of the Anthropological

Society of Bombay, VIII (1954), 9-22.

259



Documents

A Note on the Comparative View of Caste