As a result of increasing populations, various governments around the world have developed socially stratified societies as a means to control their inhabitants. In these societies “people are hierarchy divided and ranked into social strata…and do not share equally in basic resources that support survival” (Haviland, 2008; 258). More specifically, the Hindu cast system in India and the social class system in the United States of America are two examples of social stratification that have been developed to control a large population into a manageable number of social categories. Although these two forms of taxonomy are distinct and unique in their own right, they are very similar in the sense that they control a large heterogeneous group of people with many diverse values and norms, by regulating the roles that each stratum plays in society. However, as a consequence of classifying people into various social categories with different roles and interests, many inequalities have surfaced. In essence, these inequalities are a result of the value and influence that each stratum carries in the society as a whole.
The social cast system in India is a form of social stratification that originates from the Hindu religion. Due to the religious belief in karma, this system is composed of “closed social [classes]… in which the membership is determined by birth and fixed for life” (Haviland, 2008; 259). In other words, the upward mobility for people of a lower cast into a higher cast is nearly impossible due to the fundamental belief that cast is determined by “ritual purity” or, the amount of religious influence in accordance with prestige held by each group (Haviland, 2008; 259). As a consequence, members of a certain social cast are confined to their stratum’s distinct occupations, customs, guidelines and limitations. For example, the Dalit cast is the lowest cast possible in India which is composed of people who are regarded as the “untouchables” (Haviland, 2008; 260). These people are considered impure and are commonly subjected to humiliation, segregation, and discrimination by the higher casts. Individuals who are part of this cast are also exploited for their cheap labor and as in all other casts, must marry endogomously into their respective cast in order to maintain the integrity of their family’s blood line. On the other hand, the Kshatriya cast is the s...
... middle of paper ...
...tional and cultural beliefs that the wealthier classes are superior to the poorer classes and therefore, are held in higher regard. For instance, although laws against segregation and discrimination have been passed, discrimination still prevails socially in both India and the United States (Haviland, 2008; 260). Inequalities are still present and privileges are still given to the higher strata that are not given to the lower strata. This makes being a part of the lower strata unfairly disadvantageous. Despite efforts to equalize social class, there will always be inequality due to social stratification that negatively impact lives are all over the world
Works Cited
Alvarez, Louis and Andrew Kolker. (Director). (2001). People Like Us. [Videotape]. Boston: PBS Video.
Davis, F. James. (1991). Who is Black?: On Nation’s Definition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (82-122).
Haviland, William A ., Harald Prins, Dana Walrath & Bunny McBride. (2008). Cultural Anthropology (12th ed.).(250-266)
Huff, Daniel D. (1992) Upside-Down Welfare. In Public Welfare. (177-183).
Sacks, Karen Brodkin. (1996). How Did Jews Become White Folks. Race. 78-102.
Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 14th Edition William A. Havilland; Harald E. L. Prins; Bunny McBride; Dana Walrath Published by Wadsworth, Cengage Learning (2014)
The class system has been in place within humanity since the very birth of economic trade. It is a fact of life that others will seek self-betterment and gain power to provide for those that they love and their own personal interest. Throughout the years the implementation of a social class system has helped to differentiate the types of economic situations as nation and serve as a system to work toward the betterment of the society as a whole. However, as the world became more productive and the gaps between the higher classes and lower classes increased the efficiency of the social class system and the decisions made from the individuals within it has been called into question. Kalen Ockerman opened the channel to question if the class system is the helpful institution that benefits of all its citizens or if the lower classes are not getting the support and attention they deem necessary.
Robbins Burling, David F. Armstrong, Ben G. Blount, Catherine A. Callaghan, Mary Lecron Foster, Barbara J. King, Sue Taylor Parker, Osamu Sakura, William C. Stokoe, Ron Wallace, Joel Wallman, A. Whiten, Sherman Wilcox and Thomas Wynn. Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 25-53
This contribution also heavily influences the order in a society, this is what the people see as right and wrong, laws to obey, elders to look up to, etc. Government is far from just the people in authority and laws to follow; it’s about socialization, trade, exchange, interactions with other countries, contradiction of what was thought to be right, justice, positions, jobs, skills, and so much more. In the 21st India there was a caste system in which created a “stable social order” (Document D). This system “dictated status and occupation” (Document D) and was not equal to all people but to only some of which are part of a higher class and social rank. There are many disadvantage for the ones who are on the lower end of the rank like less nutrition accessibility, lower education, and fewer relations or contacts to essential “social institutions” (Document D). This system of India is part of their government. It shows what they are like and how they want things to be and go according to. Their government is influencing their order by making things go a certain way. This government is making it where there are advantages for the high classes and not very many for the lower class. Making it almost impossible for someone to get themselves out of the lower class and move up into the higher class. There was also a system in Aryan society like this one but very different. This system also had
Allow me to begin my exposition by diving deep into one of the most misunderstood cultures in the modern world; a culture of ancient wisdom and colorful tradition; the culture of Hinduism in India. At first glace, the Hindu society, one finds a very structured way of life; a social system in which individuals are divided into distinct, close knit communities. This type of hierarchical division is known as a caste system. With its roots in the religion of Hinduism, those Hindu and non-Hindu alike are affected by the social power of the Indian structure. Generally speaking, there exist four major divisions in caste. In each division, individuals are assigned certain duties in society. The word dharma is used to describe one’s social duties. One is only allowed to perform those duties assigned to him/her by one’s particular caste. In religious terms each caste is called a Varna. The highest level of the hierarchy contains those of the highest education. All the spiritual leaders, tea...
In North America, it is not indicated as a caste system, but is classified as a social class or class system. In Sociology: The Essentials, social class or class is described as the social structural position groups hold relative to the economic, social, political, and cultural resources of society. With this characterization in mind, a persons “class determines the access different people have to these resources and puts groups in different positions of privilege and disadvantage” (Sociology 172). With this perception of class in mind, it shows that people do not have the same amount of resources or privileges as others. Each of these different classes has people with the same opportunities or privileges that other classes may not have. For example, the higher class, that has almost everything, will have more opportunities than someone in the lower class that is homeless and does not have a lot of personal items. Other examples of inequality that occurs within the class system, is that people with a different color skin as another person that thinks they are superior to someone who has a different skin tone as someone else, also there is an unfairness between men and
The current manifestations of the caste system are now far more generalized across the Indian subcontinent than was the case in former times. Caste as we now recognize has been endangered, shaped and perpetuated by comparatively recent political and social developments. This is evident even i...
We are lucky, today, that the majority of the world’s nations are democracies. This has only been the case in very recent times. For the greater part of human history, society has subscribed to the belief that birth is the most important determinant of one’s future. In Elizabethan England, this was especially true. Those born into the nobility enjoyed a lifetime of privilege, while those born outside of their ranks mainly existed to serve them. A century later, the British encountered an even stricter form of this belief when they conquered India. The Hindu caste system, which dictated one’s future based on birth just as British society did, was deemed even by the English to be excessively restrictive. After gaining control of the Subcontinent, the conquerors attempted to supplant the caste system with the semblance of a meritocracy. The new subjects of the Empire, instead of embracing this imposition of a foreign culture’s values, responded with general unrest and discontent, showing that no society, no matter how unfair or prejudiced, tolerates interference well. Shakespeare’s King Lear demonstrates the same concept: that any violation of society’s conception of the natural order brings chaos, and that the only way to restore harmony is to conform to the expectations of that society.
Schultz, Emily A. & Lavenda, Robert H. 2005, Cultural Anthropology, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, New York, Chapter 3: Fieldwork.
Owing to India’s diversity, these identities are determined by caste, ancestry, socioeconomic class, religion, sexual orientation and geographic location, and play an important role in determining the social position of an individual (Anne, Callahan & Kang, 2011). Within this diversity, certain identities are privileged over others, due to social hierarchies and inequalities, whose roots are more than a thousand years old. These inequalities have marginalized groups and communities which is evident from their meagre participation in politics, access to health and education services and
Kedia, Satish, and Willigen J. Van (2005). Applied Anthropology: Domains of Application. Westport, Conn: Praeger. pp. 16, 150.
India is known for the diversity of the Caste System with different languages, different religious traditions, practices and a system of beliefs. The Caste System is very important part of the Hindu tradition because it is a historically important aspect into which people live in India, follow different religions, tribes, languages and belief. Nowadays, there are so many sub-caste systems in India. Caste identity is determined based on social status, given the rank based on hierarchical order and social stratification of the caste system. Caste identity is also associated with social advantage or disadvantage
Class is a system of stratification in which membership in a stratum can theoretically be altered and intermarriage between strata is allowed. This is the type of stratification found in the United States. There are two theories to analyze stratification. functionalist theory and conflict theory. These two theories differ in the way they view stratification the the U.S.Functional theory of inequality holds that stratification is a way to reward individuals who contribute most to society’s well being. While conflict theory of inequality holds that stratification benefits mainly the upper stratum and is the cause of most social unrest and other conflicts in human society (Peoples&Bailey, 2015, p.
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Apart from the natural differences, human beings are also differentiated according to socially approved criteria that are upheld. Haralambos, Holborn and Heard (2004:p 1) stated that social stratification is a form of social inequality that represents distinct social groups which are ranked about the other in terms of factors such as prestige and wealth. Social Stratification draws attention to unequal positions occupied by individuals in society. In the modern industrial world the stratification system that has been dominant is a class system. Sociologists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Davis and Moore have all added their perspectives to social stratification. Perspectives of social stratification include the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective and Weber’s class stratification. Class stratification proposed by Max Weber best describes social stratification in the English speaking Caribbean. Weber believed that social stratification results for competition for scarce resources in the society. Like Marx, Weber believed that class is based on power and the distribution of that power, Weber proposed that power is not limited to economic dimension but also involves social and political dimensions as well. Empirical studies in the Caribbean have mainly focused on class distinction, status hierarchy and power. Class, status, party and power are dimensions Max Weber class stratification perspective that is most relevant in the English speaking Caribbean.